On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 01:54:13PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > 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. > Ah, silly me. I was only looking in the Sources files, completely forgetting > the Packages files. > Now there's a first test implementation in place. It reads the Depends and > Build-Depends* fields and reports potential problems with those packages. Note that the testing scripts themselves do not examine Build-Depends today; such problems are only identified through manually filed RC bug reports. Which is not to say that we shouldn't be tracking such problems -- just that they don't actually hold a package out of testing by default. > I currently don't handle the arch-specific component of dependencies properly > - those are simply stripped. Alternative packages are all checked, but there's > a prefix "alternative x/y:" on each line to indicate this. Also, I only use > the i386 Packages files so far. Ok. BTW, are you taking into account the possibility of a package being uninstallable due to versioned Conflicts, and Conflicts between packages which otherwise satisfy a package's dependencies? > I would appreciate if some of you tested this and reported cases where you > know there is a problem but my script doesn't report it. Will start looking... Thanks for working on this. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature