Re: pd-hid caught in unstable, but why?
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 16:43 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> I was just checking in on my packages, it seems that pd-hid is caught in
> unstable for 75 days, but I can't figure out what the issue is. The
> error message is "Adding pd-hid makes 1 non-depending packages
> uninstallable on kfreebsd-amd64: pd-hid "
>
> http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=pd-hid;expand=1
>
> But what is that 1 non-depending package? Is it 'puredata (<<0.43)'?
No, it's pd-hid, as the message you quoted indicates.
> Other packages with that same Build-Depends are already in testing.
> Also, buildd seems to show it as installed on kFreeBSD:
That only indicates it builds, not that it's installable.
edos-debcheck is one method of demonstrating the issue:
$ edos-debcheck -explain -checkonly pd-hid < Packages_kfreebsd-amd64
Completing conflicts... * 100.0%
Conflicts and dependencies... * 100.0%
Solving * 100.0%
pd-hid (= 0.7-1): FAILED
pd-hid (= 0.7-1) depends on one of:
- pd-mapping (= 0.2-1)
$ edos-debcheck -explain -checkonly pd-mapping < Packages_kfreebsd-amd64
Completing conflicts... * 100.0%
Conflicts and dependencies... * 100.0%
Solving * 100.0%
pd-mapping (= 0.2-1): FAILED
pd-mapping (= 0.2-1) depends on missing:
- pd-cyclone
$ dak ls pd-cyclone
pd-cyclone | 0.1~alpha55-3 | testing | source, amd64, armel, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
pd-cyclone | 0.1~alpha55-3 | unstable | source, amd64, armel, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: