[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#560099: marked as done (edos-distcheck: Fails to detect uninstallability of some java packages)

Your message dated Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:40:52 +0100
with message-id <20091209214052.GW22110@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#560099: edos-distcheck: Fails to detect uninstallability of some java packages
has caused the Debian Bug report #560099,
regarding edos-distcheck: Fails to detect uninstallability of some java packages
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
560099: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=560099
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: edos-distcheck
Version: 1.4.2-5
Severity: normal

Hi,

it looks like some installability issues are not caught and packages
don't end up in BD-Uninstallable state but are tried, and FTBFS.

See for example: #559986, #560072

The java issue has been reported in #560093

As I said in my mail to -wb-team@[1], it might be that edos is figuring
out a solution apt-get can't think of, but maybe edos is just failing to
analyze some dependencies and conflicts properly?

 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-wb-team/2009/12/msg00009.html

Since I'm not sure what's going on, I'm opening this bugreport.

Mraw,
KiBi.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi Ralf.

Ralf Treinen <treinen@free.fr> (09/12/2009):
> I just checked for #559986. Indeed, edos reports satisfiabiliy of
> the source dependencies of babel 1.4.0.dfsg-5 on main+contrib, sid
> i386.

(I'm not sure why you included contrib? But from a very quick look,
java-related packages seem to be coming up from main, so…)

> Here is the installation : According to edos, this set is consistent
> (all dependencies and conflicts satsified inside the set), and it
> satisfies the build-dependencies of babel. If you can spot an error
> I'd like to hear about it, otherwise I will close the bug
> report. This set has been computed with pkglab 1.4.2-5.

Please note some java packages (through gcc-defaults) got adjusted a
few hours after I reported this bug. But I'm still able to reproduce
this bug with the current set of packages in sid/kfreebsd-i386 (which
doesn't differ from i386 AFAICT, there were no recent build failures):
| https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=babel&ver=1.4.0.dfsg-5&arch=kfreebsd-i386&stamp=1260394449&file=log

Anyway: I totally understand that apt-get may be missing a
solution. It's just been a few months now since this system is in
place, and I've seen little to no similar errors. (The only one I
could think of is sbuild's failing on some A | B cases.)

And since you've provided with a working solution, it seems like edos
is doing fine, which is why I'm closing this bugreport. I guess some
more java stuff will need tweaking to help package managers find an
installability solution. I guess I'm going to have to dig in that
direction.

Thanks for confirming. And many thanks for edos(-related tools). That
definitely changed my (non-Linux ports with many missing packages)
buildd maintainer's life.

Mraw,
KiBi.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: