Re: Please help: libsigcx not moving into testing
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 02:34:29PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> Michael Koch <konqueror@gmx.de> writes:
> > It seems your package libsigcx prevents libsigc++ and some packages
> > depending on it from moving into testing. Can you please look into
> > this issue ?
> >
> > http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=libsigc%2B%2B-1.2&expand=1
>
> I've wondered about this, too and I don't quite understand why
> libsigcx isn't going into testing, since I really don't grok this one:
>
> http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=libsigcx&expand=1
>
> What strikes me is this (from above URL):
>
> ,----
> | Updating libsigcx makes 4 packages uninstallable on alpha: libsigcx-0.6-1, libsigcx-0.6-dev, libsigcx-gtk-0.6-1, libsigcx-gtk-0.6-dev
> |
> | * libsigcx-0.6-1 has no testing candidate
> | * libsigcx-0.6-dev has no testing candidate
> | * libsigcx-gtk-0.6-1 has no testing candidate
> | * libsigcx-gtk-0.6-dev has no testing candidate
> `----
>
> So how can libsigcx break it's own binary packages (libsigcx-0.6-1,
> libsigcx-0.6-dev, ...), which aren't even in testing yet:
This output means that if those packages were moved into testing then
they would themselves be uninstallable. From
http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html.gz, you can
see:
* libsigcx (0.5.5-3 to 0.6.3-1)
+ Maintainer: Andreas Rottmann
+ 35 days old (needed 10 days)
+ Valid candidate
+ Depends: libsigcx libsigc++-1.2
The Depends: offers a hint that libsigcx is probably blocked on
libsigc++1.2, which indeed it is.
The problem is that libsigcx's soname has changed since the last version
in testing. This usually means that it needs (a) everything that depends
on it to be updated and (b) a manual kick by aj. It's possible that only
(b) is necessary; I'll be able to tell you shortly.
> ,----
> | rotty@auric:~% madison libsigcx-0.6-1 libsigcx-0.6-dev libsigcx-gtk-0.6-1 libsigcx-gtk-0.6-dev | grep testing
> | rotty@auric:~%
> `----
>
> And furthermore: Why do they have no testing canditate?
It looks like Björn's script is buggy. It should be using source package
names there rather than binary package names.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: