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

Re: Which packages will hold up the release?

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

Reply to: