On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 01:50 +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > Hi, > > I started to file bugs against packages that are not installable on any > architecture. There were only a handful of them in testing, but now I am > turning to unstable and that now more looks like a mass bug filing. So > I reckoned I'd better ask here whether that would be OK. > > The source is the daily analysis done by edos-debcheck, the results of > which is available on edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/. Packages can be > temporarily uninstallable in sid and on some architectures for all > possible transient reasons, so I think a good start would be packages > that > (1) do not install on *any* architecture and > (2) are not installable for a certain length of time (e.g., 1 month) > In that case I would file a bug with severity=grave since the package > is not usable for all, or at least a large number of, users. > > Currently there are 68 packages that satisfy (1), I didn't check for > (2) yet: > > http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/results/unstable/latest/every/list.php > > Any opinions? -Ralf I think some of these are old versions of arch:all packages that for some reason have not been automatically removed. I think you should consider only the latest version of each binary package available in the suite. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part