[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Discussion - non-free software removal

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:41:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:21:34AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > (haha, no I'm not volunteering).
> ? The change would be something like:
>                 for arch in self.arches:
>                         con = self.srcsnpkgs[arch].packages
>                         if arch not in nobreakarchallarches:
>                                 con = filter(
>                                         self.srcsnpkgs[arch].isnt_arch_all,
>                                         con)
> +			con = filter(self.srcsnpkgs[arch].is_in_contrib, con)
>                         nuninst[arch] = filter(
>                                 self.srcsnpkgs[arch].is_uninstallable,
>                                 con)
>                 return nuninst
> with an is_in_contrib() function written in C. It'd mean that when glibc
> breaks like it is at the moment, that contrib packages wouldn't get
> held back, and would become completely useless to testing uses though,
> which I'd be inclined to think wasn't a worthwhile thing to do.

Well, not necessarily. Is it possible to ignore only the kinds of
dependency problems that involve missing packages, not ones that involve
out-of-date packages? The latter are obviously bad even in contrib,
whereas the former are legal there.

Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: