Re: Cyclic dependencies in octave2.1 packages?
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, because they depend not only on the shared library but
also on the -dev package. Such circular dependencies have occured and
will continue occuring.
> Is there anything I can do better as Octave, octave-forge,
> octave-sp maintainer?
Uhm, maybe yes: keep calm. I really did love the original plan you had a
day earlier:
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.
The reason of this, one could conject, is that the output during that ten
day period is just a rather barren "...is too young". :-(
Then, after the ten day have passed, people (including myself) start
panicking.
Regards
-richy.
--
.''`. Richard B. Kreckel
: :' : <kreckel@debian.org>
`. `' <kreckel@ginac.de>
`- <http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>
Reply to: