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

Re: How to get KDE in: total analysis

On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:25:31PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > In any case, please see
> > http://ftp-master.debian.org/~vorlon/KDE-missing-bysource.txt for a
> > separate analysis.
> With reference to that :-), please note the following; after going through
> that and the hints file these are the only notable omissions I found (in
> rough order from blatant to minor):

> * bibletime/1.4.1-2.1 *will not* be removed from testing unless  
>   bibletime-i18n/1.4.1-1 (yes, this is a different source package)
>   is also removed.  So the removal hint needs to be fixed.

Well, britney would allow it to be removed, it would just increase the
uninstallable account to do so. :)  Fixed, anyway.

> * kismet, which is under "other packages needing investigation", depends on
>   new libstdc++ (on *every* architecture for which the current version
>   built), so whether or not it needs a new upload on MIPS is kind of
>   irrelevant; it will have to be removed from testing, since breaking it
>   on every architecture is obviously worse.  (Old version broken by new
>   KDE.)  No reverse depends.

kismet doesn't actually depend on KDE, but it does depend on libstdc++ which
I missed.  Had I realized this, I would have added it to the list of
packages to push in; now it's too late, so yes, it has to be removed for now

> * You didn't notice lincvs (non-free); depends on libstdc++ on ia64,
>   old version broken by new qt-x11-free, probably removable

Quite right; there were a few corners left out of the list until the current
set could be addressed.

> * hplip (not noted) definitely needs further investigation.  Old version
>   (0.9.3-3) of hplip-base is broken by new net-snmp.  New version
>   (0.9.6-1) of hplip doesn't produce hplip-base anymore, and has
>   changed hplip from arch:all to arch:any.  (melanie needs to remove
>   hplip-base 0.9.5-4, perhaps?)  New hplip depends on new libstdc++ on
>   i386 and powerpc.  hpijs (same source package) didn't build on sparc.
>   Make of this what you can, as I am still confused.  :-P

Letting hplip-base be broken in testing for now is fine; there are
reverse-deps of other binaries from the package that aren't broken by the
transition, so better to leave them as-is.

> * wine/0.9-1 is too young (2/10 days).  (Old version broken by new JACK.)
>   It *doesn't* depend on libstdc++.  The new version is RC-bug-free
>   and in fact the first upstream beta (as opposed to alpha), so a good
>   'urgent' candidate.

Yep, bumped in.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: