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

Re: Which packages will hold up the release?

On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:23:32PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hypothetical example:
> > 
> > 29 packages wait on (151 packages are stalled by) libxml2.  This package
> > is too young, and should be a valid candidate in 8 days.
> > 
> > Suppose that the libxml2 source package provided not only the
> > libxml2-python2.3 binary package, but also a libxml2-python package that
> > depended on python (>> 2.3).  If that were the case, then even after
> > libxml2 became a valid candidate in its own right, it would still be
> > held up by the python2.3 transition.

> Thank you. Some followup questions:

> 1) How are meta packages handled, such as libz-dev that libxml2 
> depends on. There is no package or binary with that name listed in 
> Sources.

The testing scripts (barring any bugs) check to make sure that a given
candidate package would be *installable* on a system composed only of
testing packages.  This means that it treats virtual packages the same
way that dpkg does on install: by looking for available packages that
Provide: the needed virtual package.

> 2) How is meta package versioning handled? The gcc-defaults package, 
> version 1.9, is the only package providing the gcc binary (without 
> -version suffix) of which many packages require version >= 2.95.

The term "metapackage" is a gratuitous label, here.  There is a real
binary package (as opposed to a virtual package) in the archive named
"gcc", which comes from the gcc-defaults source package; and its
versions are handled just like those of any other packages.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpekYuPiWOzv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: