Hi, Am Freitag, den 27.11.2009, 09:05 +0100 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > > Ignoring older packages is also not correct. If an Arch: any package > > with an older version has a strict dependency on an Arch: all package > > which is still available, apt will happily install them if you try to > > install the Arch:any package and will refuse to install the newer > > Arch:all package if you would try that AFAIK. > > That's clear, but I though that was _intended_, for what concerns the > build. A rationale for that is that the older package will vanish soon, > it is there only temporarily, so it is pointless to build other packages > against it: it will just postpone (potential) build problems. > > Wasn't that the rationale of the patch in the first place? I think I didn’t give it too much thought back than. I just noticed that edos-debcheck would mark a package as bd-installable when the buildd’s were not able to install the dependencies. I can’t recall the exact circumstances. Why don’t you just remove the patch and see what breaks, then we’ll have examples to discuss :-) Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil