Re: Cyclic dependencies in octave2.1 packages?
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 05:41:16AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 06:53:30AM -0600, 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? Is there anything I can do better as Octave, octave-forge,
> > octave-sp maintainer?
>
> > > in any case, I will follow up that hint until it works (means: I will
> > > look daily into it, until it works, and if it takes too long, I'll also
> > > work with simulation runs). [And that is the strategy with any hint - as
> > > soon as I pick it up, I will make sure that it actually works.]
>
> > Ok -- I really appreciate that.
>
> > Now, to make matters worse, I actually uploaded octave 2.1.64 last evening.
> > Does that screw everything up, or can you push 2.1.63 and its dependents
> > through before 2.1.64 comes into the archive?
>
> Sorry, the testing scripts run once a day, just like dinstall. The packages
> you uploaded will be installed at dinstall, so the next testing script run
> will see 2.1.64 and refuse to allow it into testing (too new, plus being out
> of date on some archs).
Fair enough. And 2.1.64 will be the new upstream 'testing' release so we
want that in sarge anyway.
I will follow-up with octave-{forge,sp} later today -- but is there a way in
which I should not depend on anything to not get blocked with ginac?
Should I be Depends: octave2.1 (>= 2.1.64) but without the << 2.1.65 ?
Dirk
--
If your hair is standing up, then you are in extreme danger.
-- http://www.usafa.af.mil/dfp/cockpit-phys/fp1ex3.htm
Reply to: