|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > June 2006 > Testing excuses question
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Testing excuses question
|
|
| Jiri Palecek 2006-06-26, 1:24 pm |
| Hello,
I've seen some mysterious excuses on http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian
For example:
look at the package arch2darcs. There is:
arch2darcs is adding amd64 binaries (no new version)
arch2darcs is waiting for tla
this looks OK.
But then
Updating tla makes 1 depending packages uninstallable on i386: arch2darcs
And more
Dependency analysis (including build-depends; i386 only):
info: arch2darcs depends on tla >= 1.3 (ok, testing has version 1.3.3-3)
So:
- How can be arch2darcs be waiting for tla, if testing already has some version.
I could understand it is waiting for tla to add amd64 packages too, but it blocks
other arches.
- How can updating tla make arch2darcs on i386, if testing has version 1.3.3-3,
is trying to update to 1.3.3-3.3 (it seems the maintainer does some numerology :-)
and the dependency is in the form >=1.3?
It seems these packages are blocked by neon (which also block subversion, kdevelop
and rpm). There is also another gem concerning neon:
neon depends on libssl-dev >= 0.9.8a-3 but testing has 0.9.8b-2 (unstable has 0.9.8b-2)
It seems that all packages the webpage says are directly dependent on neon
already have a version that is not too young and is RC bug free, so if there aren't any
other reasons, they could go in.
BTW what is the exact reason for this situation?
Regards
Jiri Palecek
________________________________________
______________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Ozgur Karatas 2006-06-26, 1:24 pm |
| success,
and test set in webalizer?=20
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/points.html
,''`. Ozgur Karatas
: :' : ozgur@ozgurkaratas.com
`. `' http://www.ozgurkaratas.com
`- Powered By Debian GNU\Linux
---- Jiri Palecek <jpalecek@web.de> demi=C5=9F ki:=20
> Hello,
>=20
> I've seen some mysterious excuses on http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian
>=20
> For example:
>=20
> look at the package arch2darcs. There is:
>=20
> arch2darcs is adding amd64 binaries (no new version)=20
> arch2darcs is waiting for tla
>=20
> this looks OK.
>=20
> But then
>=20
> Updating tla makes 1 depending packages uninstallable on i386: ar=
ch2darcs
>=20
> And more
>=20
> Dependency analysis (including build-depends; i386 only):
>=20
> info: arch2darcs depends on tla >=3D 1.3 (ok, testing has version 1.3=
..3-3)
>=20
> So:
>=20
> - How can be arch2darcs be waiting for tla, if testing already has some v=
ersion.
> I could understand it is waiting for tla to add amd64 packages too, but=
it blocks
> other arches.
>=20
> - How can updating tla make arch2darcs on i386, if testing has version 1.=
3.3-3,
> is trying to update to 1.3.3-3.3 (it seems the maintainer does some num=
erology :-)
> and the dependency is in the form >=3D1.3?
>=20
> It seems these packages are blocked by neon (which also block subversion,=
kdevelop
> and rpm). There is also another gem concerning neon:
>=20
> neon depends on libssl-dev >=3D 0.9.8a-3 but testing has 0.9.8b-2 (un=
stable has 0.9.8b-2)
>=20
> It seems that all packages the webpage says are directly dependent on neo=
n
> already have a version that is not too young and is RC bug free, so if th=
ere aren't any
> other reasons, they could go in.
>=20
> BTW what is the exact reason for this situation?
>=20
> Regards
> Jiri Palecek
| |
| Jiri Palecek 2006-06-26, 1:24 pm |
| > success,
> and test set in webalizer=3F=20
> http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/points.html
Sorry, I do not understand. You mean the "breaks xx packages" thingy=3F
I have already said, that of these 74 packages, 15 are dependent,
and they are more or less prepared to enter testing along with
neon. The rest only depends on those 15, and seem (I have not=20
checked all) to be OK if the 15 go in (eg. they don't have to go in).
Regards
Jiri Palecek
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5
F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5
F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F
Mit WEB.DE iNews werden Sie =FCber die Ergebnisse der wichtigsten WM-Begegnu=
ngen
per SMS informiert: http://freemail.web.de/features/ine.../=3Fmc=3D021202
| |
| Andrew Vaughan 2006-06-26, 1:24 pm |
| On Monday 26 June 2006 23:08, Jiri Palecek wrote:
> Sorry, I do not understand. You mean the "breaks xx packages" thingy?
>
> I have already said, that of these 74 packages, 15 are dependent,
> and they are more or less prepared to enter testing along with
> neon. The rest only depends on those 15, and seem (I have not
> checked all) to be OK if the 15 go in (eg. they don't have to go in).
Upgrading neon breaks subversion (and other packages), but subversion is
waiting for both neon and perl. PERL FTBFS on hppa and mips.
HTH
Andrew V.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|