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

Re: file RC bugs for potato uninstallable pkgs (was Re: Please release 2.1r6)



On 22 Apr 2000, Adam Di Carlo wrote:

> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> 
> > FWIW, http://auric.debian.org/~ajt/potato_probs.html has similar lists,
> > except it will choose whichever of perl or perl5 that works, and not
> > worry that the other one doesn't. It also takes Conflicts into account.
> > 
> > On the downside, it doesn't care about priorities, and doesn't list
> > explanations (it seems hard to work out what's at fault when conflicts
> > are involved).
> 
> Still, it's an excellent list.  An, I think, an excellent basis for
> filing RC bugs against all uninstallable packages.  Why didn't we do
> this at the start of the freeze?

I personally prefer

apt-cache unmet

to find uninstallable packages for my architecture (i386), but that's my
personal preference.

> Am I alone in thinking that uninstallable pkgs should be yanked from
> potato (at least for their arch) or else fixed?

No, it would be a poor reference for Debian if there were unmet
dependencies in stable. I remenber ONE annoying "Recommends:" that can't
be fulfilled in slink/i386 .

> And that RC bugs should be filed?

I started filing RC bugs against unmet "Depends:" and "Recommends:"
yesterday.


One thing you have to look after:

Package vchkpw version 3.1.2-7 has an unmet dep:
 Depends: qmail

isn't a bug because qmail is build from qmail-src . I'm not sure, but I
think a good solution for this problem (something like a "This package
builds:" field) is missing.

cu,
Adrian

-- 
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
                -- Mahatma Ghandi


Reply to: