Re: libgnome-dev uninstallable?

[Erik Steffl <steffl@bigfoot.com>]

Colin Watson wrote:
> 
> Erik Steffl <steffl@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >on debian testing:
> >
> >jojda:/home/erik# apt-get install libgnome-dev
> >...
> >Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
> >  libgnome-dev: Depends: libgnome32 (= 1.0.56-3) but 1.2.8-3 is to be
> >installed
> >                Depends: libgnorba-dev but it is not going to be
> >installed
> >E: Sorry, broken packages
> >
> >  should the *-dev packages be available for the same version as their
> >respective non-dev packages?
> 
> Are you sure you haven't grabbed a package from
> unstable/Ximian/Progeny/whatever at some point in the past?
> 
>   [cjwatson@auric ~]$ madison libgnome-dev
>   libgnome-dev |   1.0.56-3 |        stable | alpha, arm, i386, m68k,
>                                               powerpc, sparc
>   libgnome-dev |   1.0.56-3 |       testing | alpha, arm, i386, m68k,
>                                               powerpc, sparc
>   libgnome-dev |    1.2.4-3 |      unstable | hurd-i386
>   libgnome-dev |   1.2.13-2 |      unstable | alpha, arm, i386, m68k,
>                                               mips, powerpc, sparc
>   [cjwatson@auric ~]$ madison libgnome32
>   libgnome32 |   1.0.56-3 |        stable | alpha, arm, i386, m68k,
>                                             powerpc, sparc
>   libgnome32 |   1.0.56-3 |       testing | alpha, arm, i386, m68k,
>                                             powerpc, sparc
>   libgnome32 |    1.2.4-3 |      unstable | hurd-i386
>   libgnome32 |   1.2.13-2 |      unstable | alpha, arm, i386, m68k, mips,
>                                             powerpc, sparc
> 
> Looks like libgnome32 and libgnome-dev are consistent enough in testing.

  well, I had unstable before testing was created - does that mean gnome
wasn't updated since? why? are there serious problems with new gnome?

  funny thing is that while testing was meant to be slightly more stable
alaternative to unstable I actually have more problems since I started
to use testing... my impression is that stable is stable because it's
carefully tested over time (and fixed without features added), unstable
is ok because it gets daily attention and testing is worst of both
world, still has some fairly old software and fixes get a long time to
get to it...

  I mean I had more problems with testing then when I used unstable (and
I used unstable for over a year). What do you guys think? unstable or
testing?

	erik