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

Bug#649460: release.debian.org: improved architecture annotation in dependency analysis script/page

On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 23:59 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > The reason that wine-unstable isn't migrating is listed at the top of
> > the page:
> >
> >    wine-unstable is not yet built on amd64: 1.1.34-1 vs 1.1.35-1 (missing 19 binaries)
> >    wine-unstable is not yet built on powerpc: 1.1.29-1 vs 1.1.35-1 (missing 18 binaries)
> Yes, I did see that, but none of that is relevant to this particular
> issue, so I chose to exclude this extraneous info from my initial
> report.

I must admit I'm confused then.

Your original mail said "wine is held back because of a lot of missing
packages in testing, but only on kfreebsd-amd64", so I assumed that you
were suggesting that such kfreebsd-amd64 issues were actually affecting
the package's migration to testing - otherwise the fact that the
packages aren't in testing is irrelevant.

However, the package has never built on kfreebsd-amd64, so that's not an
issue for testing.  Regardless of whether the output of the migration
page in terms of dependency analysis is optimal (which I'll quite
happily admit it's not), the package is not being "held back" from
testing because of anything on kfreebsd-amd64, so the reasons that the
package actually *is* being "held back" don't seem at all extraneous,
which was the point I was making.

The dependency analysis section has far greater issues than nicely
showing unmet build-dependencies on architectures where there aren't
even any packages, which is what I was trying to highlight by pointing
out its inclusion of hurd packages in the output.  I think that _is_ the
fundamental issue - with the exception of simple cases, I'm not
convinced the current output is helpful to anyone and, as this report
demonstrates, actually appears to be confusing people.



Reply to: