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

Re: Unblock of packages in "could be handled by britney"

(No need to CC me: I read both lists)

On Saturday 05 April 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> > 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?

Status is: I personally think we'll need to address this at some point but 
it has never really been discussed within the team and I've no idea what 
will be involved other than that it's likely to be invasive.
In other words: there is no status.

Please remember that before Etch library dependencies were not even 
correctly generated (dh_shlibdeps would return regular packages instead of 
udebs). This is currently still the case for glibc, but hopefully not for 
long as I filed a BR (with patch) yesterday to fix that.

Unfortunately this whole aspect seems to have been underestimated when udebs 
were first defined. Or maybe it's not so much underestimation, but just the 
fact that D-I's scope has grown in such a way that this is just more of an 
issue then it was in the beginning.

The only thing we can do here is take this in steps. The next step should be 
britney support within the limits of the current situation regarding udeb 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: