Re: Some questions about dependencies
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 08:31:09PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 06:51:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 12:01:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:05:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:21:54AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > 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,
> > >
> > > No, because listing them each time would be irritating. Once there are
> > > more than 20 or so, it only lists the most recent 20, and includes a
> > > ".." to indicate there are more.
> > Well, fine with me, but then how in hell can you check what is really
> > going on, and find what package(s) is(are) holding a given package to
> > enter testing and can focus your effort on solving said problem.
> Uh? The 110 packages Anthony mentions are the packages *which have just
> been accepted into testing*, not ones that are blocking anything. You
> can find them all by grepping for "accepted:".
Ok, sorry, i did misunderstand. Still, when i was investigating the
ocaml situation, update_output told me there where 35 or so package that
caused problems but around 30 or so only where listed :
skipped: ocaml (1221+11)
got: 35+0: a-35
* alpha: libcamlimages-ocaml, libcamlimages-ocaml-dev,
* libconfigwin-ocaml-dev, libgdome2-ocaml, libgdome2-ocaml-dev,
* libgdome2-xslt-ocaml, libgdome2-xslt-ocaml-dev,
* liblablgl-ocaml-dev, liblablgtk-ocaml, liblablgtk-ocaml-dev,
* liblablgtkmathview-ocaml, liblablgtkmathview-ocaml-dev,
* libmlgtk-ocaml, libmlgtk-ocaml-dev, libnetclient-ocaml-dev,
* libocamlnet-ocaml-dev, libpcre-ocaml, libpcre-ocaml-dev,
* libpgsql-ocaml-dev, libpxp-ocaml-dev, libsdl-ocaml,
* libsdl-ocaml-dev, libshell-ocaml, libshell-ocaml-dev,
* libxstr-ocaml-dev, libzip-ocaml, libzip-ocaml-dev, ocamltk,
This is 5 missing packages, at first i thought these where the binary
package of the ocaml source package, but there are only 4 of them.
No problem, as you know, my urgency in this matter is no more, but still
it would be nice to have a bit more transparency in this, be it only a
better explanation in the FAQ, but i really would like an automated way
to list all the problems for a given package. I think many others than
me would find this usefull too.
> > Yes, i understand, that solves the 2), appart from the fact that it is
> > mayhap not complete, and it is not easy to parse automatically. What
> > about 1) ? Packages not in testing, but which cannot be installed in
> > testing because they are not valid candidates ?
> If they aren't valid candidates then update_excuses.html will show you
> > What can you say me about :
> > trying: hardware-monitor
> > skipped: hardware-monitor (982+40)
> > got: 23+0: a-4:a-5:h-6:i-8
> > * i386: hardware-monitor
> If you add it to testing it won't be installable, so there's no point
> doing so. (However, it's counted as a valid candidate anyway, because it
> might happen that all the packages it depends on get accepted, and then
> you don't want to have to wait another day for it to become a valid
> These Depends: lines ...
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libbonobomm1.3
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libbonoboui
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libbonobouimm1.3
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor gconf2
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor gconfmm2.0
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libglademm2.0
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libgnome
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libgnomecanvas
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libgnomecanvasmm2.0
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libgnomemm1.3
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libgnomeui
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor libgnomeuimm1.3
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor gnome-vfs2
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor gtk+2.0
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor gtkmm2.0
> > * Depends: hardware-monitor gnome-panel
> ... tell you what you should be looking at to figure out why.
Ok. Altough it would be really nice to get a recursive lookup and list
exactly the problematic packages with their repective problems.
Eventually multiple iterations of this, since there may be multiple
group of packages to be considered.