Re: Why is package X not in testing yet?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Why is package X not in testing yet?
- From: Björn Stenberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 14:03:54 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040301130354.GA25751@linux3.contactor.se>
- In-reply-to: <20040301015445.GB12802@quetzlcoatl.dodds.net>
- References: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <20040301005808.GP24639@linux3.contactor.se> <20040301015445.GB12802@quetzlcoatl.dodds.net>
Steve Langasek wrote:
> This seems like an unfortunate regression to me; in a case where only
> one binary package is made uninstallable, and this binary package comes
> from a source package that produces dozens of binary packages, surely it
> would be better to say which binaries in particular are uninstallable?
You're right. The change was done at a time when updating gdbm made over a thousand packages uninstallable, but most of them did not directly depend on gdbm. I got a request for trying to clear up the list and identify those directly depending on the checked package and those becoming uninstallable for other reasons. Displaying the source package seemed to me like a good idea in the same spirit, but wasn't.
The script is now changed back to displaying the binary packages.