Re: Monday March 24 2003 status update
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 10:40:25AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Hello, ...
As the last ocaml package will be a valid candidate in two days, let's
look at these issues again.
> And now for assorted problematic packages :
>
> > Ok, that is all the direct problems i see, there may be other hidden
> > ones (like tetex-bin and imagemagick, which are not ready for testing
> > yet).
>
> tetex-bin : (6 days out of 10)
>
> 1 RC bug : 185818 (but maybe ok, since it is less than the 2 RC bugs in testing)
The BTS claims that this is irreproducible now, and apparently gives a
reason for the dvips segfault. It is well possible that this bugreport
will be closed and that tetex-bin will enter testing two days from now.
> imagemagick : ok, but may have problem with perl or something such :(((
Is a valid candidate, but seems to be stuck, because of perl 5.8. Is the
dependence on imagemagick really on the sid version, or would the
version in sarge also fill this dependency ?
> > postgresql : needs an arm rebuild, 2 RC bugs : 172572 and 183721, has
> > other problematic dependencies, like perl and python2.2,
> > but then, maybe the versions in testing are ok for it.
>
> => 3 RC bugs : 185868, 186056 and 183721. Notice that there are two
> new ones, and that 172572 was closed. It needs 2 days only, but
> depend on perl and python, which may be problematic.
I have little faith in a quick solution to this one, maybe it would be
ok to ask for the removal of libpgsql-ocaml from testing, but only when
this will be the only package stopping us from entering testing.
Or maybe Stefano, you could build a version of this package with the
testing version of postgresql and upload it to testing-proposed-update,
or something such ?
> > libvorbis : libvorbis0/libvorbis0a RC bug : 184764.
>
> => 1 RC bug : 184764, nothing changed.
There seem to be a patch in the BTS, so maybe this will get away nextly.
Personnally, i would just ask for the removal of all ocaml packages from
testing, and let the new ones enter as needed. This way, at least we
would have a clearer vision of what is really blocking the entry of
these packages, and not the mess we have just now.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: