[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Why doesn't libsidplay enter testing?

On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:47:07PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> 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
> > "testing".

>  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.

This is precisely what would happen if this package was installed *into
testing*.  Trying to move sidplay-base into testing means that its
dependencies would not be satisfied, and would therefore be broken.
There are packages here that need to be moved together into testing, and
that requires manual hinting.

> > Updating sidplay-base alone breaks the current versions of xmms-sid
> > and xsidplay. This is not allowed, and thus sidplay-base is
> > uninstallable.

>  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.

Well, if we trust the documentation... :)  The fact is, testing is
currently in such sorry shape that the daily job *cannot* test all
combinations of packages that are waiting, without either OOM'ing the
machine or wrapping past the 24-hour mark.  This functionality is
administratively disabled until such time as testing no longer looks
like a holy mess.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpwiFD67xeQD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: