On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 22:56:52 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 30/11/12 12:51, Julien Cristau wrote: > > Before rebuilding the world, I'd like to avoid breaking partial > > upgrades. > > Here is an attempt at a better list of packages via better choice of > regexps, with notes on methodology. > Thanks. > Are you able to make binNMUs of versions from testing that have a > newer version in unstable? If so, these also need doing: > Yes, that's possible. > There are two lists of affected source packages, 61 in all, suitable > for the Breaks: you requested, at the end of this mail. I can't say > I'm looking forward to trying to map those to binary packages... (Some > of them are probably false-positives and don't actually need a Breaks.) > > I'm not really convinced those 61(ish) Breaks are particularly > valuable. We don't formally support partial upgrades, the affected Yes we do... > architectures are not mainstream desktop systems (powerpc is the > closest), none of the broken packages are particularly "core" > (GStreamer and Java are the closest), and anyone tracking testing is > going to have encountered this breakage with the current > glib2.0/wheezy already. > > In any case, if we're going to add the Breaks, I'd prefer to get the > binNMUs and the two sourceful uploads done first, so we can add them > all in one go? > OK. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature