Re: Some questions about dependencies

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:21:54AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:43:31PM +0200, Bj?rn Stenberg wrote:
> > Simon Huggins wrote:
> > > I have a feeling you want to discover update_output.txt
> > update_output.txt says:
> > trying: cfitsio
> > skipped: cfitsio (1144+9)
> >     got: 13+0: a-4:a-9
> >     * arm: fv, libcfitsio-dev, libcfitsio2
> > If I'm reading /devel/testing right, this means libcfitsio2 becomes
> > uninstallable on arm if cfitsio goes into testing. But libcfitsio2 is part of
> > cfitsio. What does this mean?
> 
> It means libcfitsio2 depends on something that isn't in testing, so if
> you add it into testing it's broken -- one of its dependencies isn't
> satisfied.
> 
> > Later it says:
> > 
> > trying: cfitsio
> > accepted: cfitsio
> 
> Later, which ever dependency wasn't present has been added to testing, so
> nothing breaks, and it can be accepted...
> 
> >    ori: 55+0: a-4:a-6:h-6:i-7:i-4:m-4:m-6:m-6:p-3:s-4:s-5
> >    pre: 54+0: a-4:a-5:h-6:i-7:i-4:m-4:m-6:m-6:p-3:s-4:s-5
> >    now: 54+0: a-4:a-5:h-6:i-7:i-4:m-4:m-6:m-6:p-3:s-4:s-5
> >   most: (110) .. xmms-msa xplanet xprint-xprintorg xwelltris/arm xwelltris/mips zope zsh-beta ztutils aolserver-nscache/arm aolserver-nsencrypt/arm apmd auto-apt bbappconf bbpager bincimap blender blt boost brltty cfitsio
> 
> ...along with some 109 other packages, which are listed.

Well, i am not sure that all of these 109 packages are listed, or at
least i have encountered times when less than the claimed packages where
listed. I understand that the number of packages got include the other
packages of the same source package, but even so, it seems confusing and
may not always be so.

Also, i understand they are various reasons for a package not entering
testing once it is a valid candidate :

  1) because a dependecy is not a valid candidate, and has no instance
  in testing.

  2) because a dependency would break a package of testing and thus
  cannot be uploaded.

I don't think there are other reason, but maybe the update_output could
be made a bit more verbose in these cases :

  1) list all packages in this case as uninstallable.
  2) maybe list both the package that is trying to enter testing and
  (between parentheses or something) the packages that they would break.

Friendly,

Sven Luther