Bug#193566: still confused about the root of the problem
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 05:10:24PM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 04:07:00PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:09:25PM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> >
> > > 3) However, the version in unstable would work, if it were in testing,
> > > wouldn't it? So the question is why the package hasn't migrated down.
> > > The reason appears to have nothing to do with the issues discussed in this
> > > thread
> >
> > That is incorrect; it is simply that there is an additional issue beyond
> > those discussed in this thread.
>
> I'm not completely sure what the "that" refers to in "that is
> incorrect." Let me make a few statements, and maybe someone can tell
> me if they are accurate:
'that' referred to the sentence beginning with 'the reason appears...'.
Yes, the version in unstable would work if it were in testing, but, as
mentioned, that requires the new apt.
> 1) python-apt depends on apt, but not the reverse (for some reason I
> had this backward in my mind)
> 2) Building python-apt from sid source in testing will fail, because
> it requires sid apt (this is the one I'm least sure of).
> 3) Building sid apt in testing is asking for trouble, since sid apt
> has RC bugs.
> So, getting back to one of my earlier questions (not shown above),
> there is no good work-around for testing.
>
>
> I might make him aware of it if he doesn't know. I assume it was "the
> greatest good for the greatest number." ajt = Anthony Towns?
Correct. He is almost certainly already aware of the change, though, and of
the situation with apt as well.
> > It built fine everywhere except arm. As far as I can tell from looking at
> > that log, this is either a problem with python or with the buildd
> > environment. I do not think there is anything wrong with python-apt. The
> > fact that no porter has filed a bug regarding this failure makes it seem
> > even less likely that python-apt is at fault.
> >
> Is there anyone who should be aware of the problem who isn't? It does
> certainly look as if it could be some general issue with the build
> system (on that platform).
The porters usually review these things and take care of them without
maintainer involvement, but it might be worth checking to see if any other
C++ packages had this problem on ARM.
> Or will attention just naturally focus on the build problem if it's
> still there when the other RC bugs go away?
That is also true.
--
- mdz
Reply to: