Re: Bug#123769: Problems for evolution into woody
Thanks Andrew for your reply. I'll address the issue at hand first. I
don't know if Takuo subscribed so I'm CC'ing him too.
* Andrew McMillan <andrew@catalyst.net.nz> [011219 02:04]:
> On Wed, 2001-12-19 at 07:33, Grant Bowman wrote:
> > So, back to the issue at hand. The update_excuses looks like this:
> >
> > * evolution/alpha unsatisfiable Depends: libgnome-pilot1 (>= 0.1.63) ['gnome-pilot']
> > * out of date on arm: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from 0.99.2-1)
> > * evolution/i386 unsatisfiable Depends: libgnome-pilot1 (>= 0.1.63) ['gnome-pilot']
> > * out of date on ia64: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from 0.99.0-2)
> > * out of date on m68k: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from 0.15-3)
> > * out of date on mips: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from 0.99.0-2)
> > * out of date on mipsel: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from 0.99.2-1)
> > * out of date on powerpc: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from 0.99.2-1)
> > * out of date on s390: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from 0.99.2-1)
> > * out of date on sparc: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from 0.99.0-2)
> > * Not considered
> > * Depends: evolution gnome-pilot
> >
> > Would fixing libgnome-pilot1 or changing this to a recommend instead of
> > depend allow evolution to move into woody? MUST all platforms be fixed
> > simultaneously?
>
> If it has ever built for a platform then it is expected to build for it
> again and therefore it is a bug if it doesn't.
OK, makes sense. Thanks for the clarification
> Yes, libgnome-pilot1 will need to build on these platforms before
> evolution will be considered for installation in testing. I suspect
> that everything will need to build on all of the "out of date" platforms
> as well.
That's alot of work for the 8 above platforms, I realize, assuming it's
really a true Depends: package. If it only needs Recommends:, that may
be good solution as well but I don't know enough about the packages yet.
Intuitively, I would expect that a pilot synching function is optional
for evolution.
> If you want to use this I would recommend that either you (a) use
> 'unstable' (personally, I would recommend this) or (b) use the
> /etc/apt/apt.conf hack to let you use a mix of 'testing' and 'unstable'
> packages.
> [...]
> Given the stability of the interfaces to evolution (gtkhtml, camel, ...)
> I know that if _I_ was the DD responsible I wouldn't be too stressed for
> the missing architectures at this stage. Once we get the base system
> ready in January or so, _that's_ when I'd start seriously looking at it
> and deciding that either (A) Alpha is not important, or (B) now is the
> hour to make it all work on alpha. To do it now is really makework, or
> potentially makework, and we're all volunteers. At this time of the
> year there is plenty of other stuff to do in our real lives.
> [...]
Your recommendation of waiting to get base stabilized is a good one.
thanks for taking the time to explain this.
Cheers,
--
-- Grant Bowman <grantbow@svpal.org>
Reply to: