Re: Why doesn't libsidplay enter testing?
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:03:38PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
>> itself uninstallable? What's the reasoning behind it?
> Because it breaks testing rule #5: "The operation of installing the
> package into "testing" must not break any packages currently in
Please read the output again. It claims that the install of
sidplay-base would render sidplay-base (e.g. _itself_) broken -- that is
what I call nonsense for the broken rendered sidplay-base would be
replaced, that's what it's all about. A package should never be able to
render _itself_ broken.
> Updating sidplay-base alone breaks the current versions of xmms-sid
> and xsidplay. This is not allowed, and thus sidplay-base is
Please read the documentation for the testing script again -- that
should already be triggered by the script. Read the part in the FAQ
about the "real, non-trivial example". This is exactly that the example
describes and what it claims to be able to do already.
> The solution is to update all of the packages at once, which requires
> manual intervention.
I don't see why it would need manual intervention. Either the
documentation is ahead of the script or it is wrong. It is claimed in
the documentation for quite some time that this is handled automagically
already and this is the whole purpose for why the packages are
repeatedly mentioned in the update_output.
So simply put: You don't know neither why they don't move to testing
automatically like they should (and I'm quite sure that it already
worked that way...). I still think that there must be a different
problem here, or rather someone b0rked the script. I don't want to
accuse anyone to have done it, I don't need anyone responsible for the
brokeness, but I'm not sure if it's really b0rked or if there is
something that I misunderstood....
SILVER SERVER \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\ \\ \
keep your backbone tidy