On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:02:52AM +0100, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote: > [Resent because I originally sent to d-r@bugs.d.o instead of the list. > Does that bugs address actually go somewhere? I did not get any error > message.] > Looking at packages.qa pages for mono, mcs and libgdiplus, it seems that > these three packages are holding each other out of testing due to circular > dependencies. > In the mix are two issues, one being that mono is supposedly out of date > but the fact actually is that all of what is listed as outdated on p.q.d.o > is not built (anymore) for the architecture on which it is supposedly > outdated; and the second problem being a RC bug (two actually, merged > ones) on libgdiplus for keeping it from migrating prematurely. > So, in fact it seems that mono now _is_ ready to migrate, it just needs > some prodding with the RC bug and by removing obsolete binary packages for > some architectures. Mono is *not* ready to migrate. Someone will have to provide some justification to the ftp-masters to explain why the mono-mint package is still built on s390 when it's been dropped on all other architectures (and with it, support for all architectures except for i386 and powerpc). I don't see any sane reason for doing this, so I can't argue the case to the ftp-masters on the maintainers' behalf. Frankly, if mono-mint is useful at all, I don't see any reason not to ship it for the "unsupported" archs; and if it's not useful on those archs, I don't see any reason to ship it on s390 as a "fallback", either. Either of these choices would have made it trivial to get mono into sarge. The maintainers instead chose the non-trivial (even pathological) approach, and have AFAICT not provided much support to the ftp-masters for resolving this situation. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature