On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 11:30:06PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 04:45:31PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > >> Though grep-excuses shows them to be valid candidates, both icu and > >> vips appear to be not transitioning to testing because of making > >> packages uninstallable on alpha (according to > >> http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=icu and corresponding > >> for vips), but I don't see any evidence that they actually will make > >> packages uninstallable on alpha. Am I missing something (including > >> possibly some announcement), or is something wrong? > > Standard scenario requiring a hint to update multiple packages together. > > This isn't done automatically because it's computationally infeasible. > > Hints added for both of these package groups which should take effect > > tomorrow as long as there are no other packages that still need to be > > updated in unstable. > Is the scenario in question that package A2 replaces package A1 and a > new version of package B that used to depend upon A1 now depends upon > A2 such that replacing A1 with A2 would make B in testing > uninstallable even though an upgrade of B would resolve the problem? Yes. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature