Bug#198479: general: package coming to sarge before their dependencies : breaks them.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 10:14:05AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 11:03:42AM +0200, Erwan David wrote:
> > Le Mon 23/06/2003, Colin Watson disait
> > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 10:36:27AM +0200, Erwan David wrote:
> > > > Several packages like html2ps or apt-file are broken in sarge because
> > > > they were put from sid before their dependencies. The coming to sarge
> > > > of a package should not be done if it makes it uninstallable.
> > >
> > > This is generally the rule. Sometimes bad things have to happen to a
> > > couple of packages in order to benefit a large number of packages
> > > elsewhere, though.
> > For html2ps and apt-file, they have been broken in sarge for
> > weeks...
> I haven't looked at them in detail. But:
> html2ps is broken due to perlmagick, which is still at a perl 5.6
> version in testing. This was temporarily necessary because getting perl
> 5.8 was more important than waiting for all of perlmagick's
> dependencies, which remain very messy and complicated; my notes say that
> imagemagick needs the lcms dependency chain, which needs the gdbm
> dependency chain, which needs the libsigc++ dependency chain, which
> needs the libgc dependency chain. Only the last of those is close to
> being ready for testing yet.
> apt-file is broken due to libapt-pkg-perl, which is still at a perl 5.6
> version in testing. Again, this was temporarily necessary because perl
> 5.8 was more important than waiting for all of libapt-pkg-perl's
> dependencies. Right now, apt's release-critical bugs need to be fixed
> before new versions of it and libapt-pkg-perl can move into testing.
Would the propper solution to this not be to remove the broken packages
from testing, until a fixed version is ready to enter testing again from
unstable ? This is what we did for the two ocaml packages which did
bloc the ocaml transition to testing, and they have now entered testing
again without further effort.