Re: Unblock of packages in "could be handled by britney"
On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 07:25:15AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 04 April 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Note that this still only one reason why we need the acks. Preventing
> > breakage is the other.
> Actually, the current klibc migration is a very nice example of this, so let
> me elaborate.
> I hope this extended example demonstrates sufficiently why I feel that all
> migrations of udebs should be acked by the D-I RM. And that it also
> demonstrated that the category "could be handled by britney" is a bit more
> complex than the name implies.
It does demonstrate that proper dependency support for udebs should be
> If proper britney support was implemented there _are_ some udebs that could
> be done completely automatically, but there will always be cases where
> automated checks are insufficient. At least until we completely rework the
> dependency declarations in udebs (which would also require adding support
> for Conflicts).
What is the status of this reworked udeb dependency handling?