Re: Why doesn't libsidplay enter testing?
* Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> [2003-07-04 00:03]:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:58:37PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> Please check the update_excuses, it would make package foo _not_ a
>> valid candidate, if that happens.
>
> That doesn't happen for circular dependencies (i.e. cycles of packages
> that each depend on newer versions of each other than are in testing),
> the reason being that if they weren't considered valid candidates then
> such cycles could never get into testing at all. (Invalid candidates are
> completely ignored - they aren't eligible for hinting, even.)
Oh, didn't know that part yet, thanks for the enlightenment.
> Please stop saying rude things like "Please check <foo>" to the people
> who are trying to explain the state of play to you, because they are
> right: it has been like this for a long time.
Sorry, I don't get it why you call it rude. It might be just me but I
would have considered it rude if I told Anthony to "RTF update_excuses".
If you take what I wrote as rude then sorry, I didn't mean it that way.
I even haven't thought that anyone would take a "please check" as rude
anyway, and I still don't understand it why you might think so.... And
like Anthony's answer showed he hasn't taken it as rude neither, and
even he thought it would happen to be written out in update_excuses.
> Upgrading either the foo source package alone or the libfoo source
> package alone renders foo uninstallable. Upgrading both simultaneously
> works. The latter requires manual action (or the occasional bit of
> guesswork by the testing scripts). It has always been this way.
Yes, it has always been this way. Or rather not, for I don't see the
need for manual action, it is documented that these cases are cought by
the testing script since ages, and it worked without manual action for
quite some time already (from what I can tell).
I just like to know if there is really the need for manual action for
such things every now and then (then this should be noted in the
documentation and I consider it rather as a bug, for there is not much
magic in this case, IMHO) or if there is something else behind this very
case, which I don't grok yet.
So long,
Alfie [no, not meant rude; don't understand it as rude]
Reply to: