On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:45:32 +0200, Niko Tyni wrote: > > If anyone can provide a "staircase" approach for this, i.e. a list of > > package to binNMU first (arch-dep, with no build-depends (including > > build-depends dependencies) depending on perlapi-5.8.8), then another > > list which includes packages build-depending (incl. indirectly) on > > packages from the first list, etc, that would be great. > I had a go at this and wrote a small program called 'find-rebuild-order' > that takes a list of uninstallable packages as input and outputs the > order they need to be rebuilt. It also checks for recursive dependencies > of essential and build-essential packages, as those need manual attention. Great, thanks! > > Some of these packages will also FTBFS due to the rmdir bug so that > > should be cleared first. > Would it make sense to split the 5.10 transition into two by reverting the > fix for the 'empty directory bug' in Extutils::MakeMaker temporarily? This > way the binNMUs for the perlapi-5.8 problem could be done first without > having to worry about the 'rmdir bug', and enabling the fix again > afterwards would only lead to build failures, not uninstallable packages. I'm not sure it's worth the hassle -- if I'm not counting wrong there are only around 20 arch:any packages left that FTBFS at the moment, and most just need an upload. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : debian: the universal operating system - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `- NP: Ben Weaver: Handed Down
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature