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(
> + con = filter(self.srcsnpkgs[arch].is_in_contrib, con)
> nuninst[arch] = filter(
> 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out-of-date packages?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 [email@example.com]