On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 09:37:32PM +0100, Richard B. Kreckel wrote: > On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 11:03:34AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > * Dirk Eddelbuettel (edd@debian.org) [041203 22:45]: > > > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:19:18AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > > * Dirk Eddelbuettel (edd@debian.org) [041203 06:15]: > > > > > > I think Richard is basically correct in his analysis. Bjorn's page lists > > > > > > > > > > > > octave2.1 > > > > > > octave-forge > > > > > > octave-sp [ source package semidef-oct ] > > > > > > > > > > > > as mutually blocking themselves on Alpha -- but buildd.debian.org shows that > > > > > > all packages have built correctly. > > > > > > > > > > I added an easy hint. Thanks for drawing our attention on it. > > > > > > > Any idea when the "hint" would result in an actual transfer to testing? > > > > > > I forget to add also ginac to that hint; should be working tonight, but > > > > Can you explain to me where the ginac issue arose, i.e. what create the > > circle? > My theory is this: there's an upgrade from libginac1.2 to libginac1.3 and > you've built against the newer one (thanks!), which isn't in testing yet. > So your packages can't go in yet. Upgrading GiNaC would render your old > packages unusable, Yes, that's it in a nutshell. > On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > A new Octave 2.1.64 was just released, but I'd like to get 2.1.63 into > > testing first. > Now we are (almost) back at square one though it looks like it would've > taken only one day to get everything in. :-( > I would not complain about this if we were able to clearly see such > problems ahead during the ten day period. But experience has shown that > we routinely fail to recognize them from the output of Björn's scripts. http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?staller=ginac The per-package pages include links labelled, e.g., 'pkgs waiting for ginac' and 'pkgs stalled by ginac'. This doesn't tell you for sure whether a package will require a hint, but it does indicate the possibility; and as maintainer, if the package is already in testing you will know what has changed since that version that would block other packages -- if it's only a shlibs change, this normally does not require a hint, but if it's a package name change, it normally will require a hint. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature