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

Re: clarifications on bjorn.haxx.se

* Frank Lichtenheld schrieb am 04.10.05, um 16:39 Uhr:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 04:16:22PM +0200, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
> > But which makes me wonder is why packages with such depends need to be
> > hinted into testing manually - it used to work very well without
> > manual hinting in the past - since when and why was this changed in
> > the testing migration scripts? Did i miss some kind of announcement
> > about this? It this supposed to be just temporally or not?
> No, I don't know of any regressions in britney in this point.
> I obviously can't say anything about past transitions (because
> of lack of information) but the hint was necesarry because
> you can't update vdr in testing without breaking all the plugins
> (because of they conflict with the vdr in unstable) but you also
> can't update the plugins on their own because they depend on the
> vdr in unstable. AFAIK britney was never able to handle situations
> like that. I guess during previous transition there was
> always only one of these things true, but not both at the same time?

Well it seems that you are right - i was under the (wrong) impression
that such a migration to testing was done sometime in the past, but
since the VDR Team maintains the package there was no migration of a
new upstream-version of vdr to testing. (Which requires all plugins to
be rebuilt against this particular new upstream-version - hence this
Depends: vdr >= <currentupstream>, Conflicts: vdr >>

It would be very nice if britney could check if the problems in
testing could be prevented (package2 would be uninstallable when
package1 would be updated) by checking if there is a new version of
package2 in unstable and if both packages could enter testing


P.S.: No need to CC me, i am subscribed to the list. :)

Thomas Schmidt, Debian VDR Team

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: