Re: Uninstallable packages in woody
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > So let's put some mechanism in place so that people are *forced* to
> > collaborate (i.e. much like "packages which are not recompiled for all
> > architectures will not pass from unstable to testing").
> Before that can be done, we need someone who's willing to put in the
> effort to actually *fix* these problems. For the build issues, we have
> the various buildd admins. For the conflicts/priority issues, we don't
> really have anyone consistently making any sort of concerted effort to
> fix them at all.
What do you mean by "actually fixing" these problems? AFAIK, nobody
without ftpmaster access can *actually* fix these problems, we can
only suggest a reasonable way to fix them.
Do you mean, for example, that if someone puts the effort to ask
involved maintainers and create a patch against the current override
file which solves most or all of the conflicts, you or ftpmasters
would seriously consider applying it?
I started to write an "override file for the override file" for woody.
Currently it looks like this:
nullmailer extra conflicts with exim
mailutils extra conflicts with mailx
mkisofs optional several optional packages depend on it
cdrecord optional several optional packages depend on it
Some entries are pretty obvious. Others are reasonable. For some others
the involved maintainers would of course have to be asked first.
To fix the problem of bad dependencies/conflicts, would it help if I
try to complete this "override file for the override file", or would
it be a waste of work?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org