| Steve Langasek 2006-01-13, 10:44 pm |
| On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:08:14AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It *seems* it has been fixed; but I don't know whether it has just
> disappeared, or has been fixed by human intervention, and if yes by
> which. Since the first may be true, it might as well reappear again.
<sigh> No, buildds don't magically go from believing a dependency is
satisfied, to believing it's not satisfied, and back again. If the problem
has disappeared, it's due to human intervention.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> How a bug in a maintainer script could have the result that installing
> an arch-all package fails because an other arch-all package is not
> there, and how this can happen on only one particular machine of one
> particular architecture, this I fail to see.
Then you haven't been looking at buildds for very long. Historically such
problems were unpleasantly frequent on buildds due to a combination of buggy
postrm scripts, and a bug in dpkg's rollback support when calling dpkg
--purge for a package in the "installed" state. I believe the dpkg bug is
fixed now, but a) I could be wrong, and b) there may be other bugs in the
world.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
|