On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 10:04:38PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Note that the testing scripts themselves do not examine Build-Depends
today; such problems are only identified through manually filed RC bug
reports. Which is not to say that we shouldn't be tracking such
problems -- just that
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
/*
You might ignore this comment...
Looking at the list of RC bugs the packages seems to fall in two
categories. Packages I don't use and packages I don't feel comfortable
in touching (glibc being an example of the
Colin Watson wrote:
In the first example, the fact that foo depends on bar while
simultaneously conflicting with the version of bar in the suite you're
looking at is the thing that's bad, because it means foo can't be
installed. The second example is OK, even though foo and bar can't be
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 12:01:11AM +0200, Bj?rn Stenberg wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok. BTW, are you taking into account the possibility of a package being
uninstallable due to versioned Conflicts, and Conflicts between packages
which otherwise satisfy a package's dependencies?
I have
There are some mathematical tools that might be useful in working with
some of these issues (I know them from models of social networks).
One can represent relations between packages as a matrix D. The rows
and columns refer to packages, and the cell is 1 if a relation exists,
otherwise 0. For
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 11:37:22PM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
There are some mathematical tools that might be useful in working with
some of these issues (I know them from models of social networks).
When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. Since I do SQL for
a living I'd put all
Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok. BTW, are you taking into account the possibility of a package being
uninstallable due to versioned Conflicts, and Conflicts between packages
which otherwise satisfy a package's dependencies?
No, not yet. I will look into it.
--
Björn
Steve Langasek wrote:
The term metapackage is a gratuitous label, here. There is a real
binary package (as opposed to a virtual package) in the archive named
gcc, which comes from the gcc-defaults source package; and its
versions are handled just like those of any other packages.
Ah, silly
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 01:54:13PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
Does anyone have a policy-compliant version comparator in Perl that I can
reuse? I'm slightly confused as to the exact meaning of 5.6.11. This means
some version compares (such as xaw3dg's 1.5+E-1 vs 1.5-25) currently return
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 01:54:13PM +0200, Bj?rn Stenberg wrote:
Does anyone have a policy-compliant version comparator in Perl that I
can reuse?
There's one in debbugs CVS, module source, Debbugs/Versions/Dpkg.pm,
translated from dpkg's algorithm as of a couple of years ago. It doesn't
do ~ yet
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 01:54:13PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
The term metapackage is a gratuitous label, here. There is a real
binary package (as opposed to a virtual package) in the archive named
gcc, which comes from the gcc-defaults source package; and its
Steve Langasek wrote:
Hypothetical example:
29 packages wait on (151 packages are stalled by) libxml2. This package
is too young, and should be a valid candidate in 8 days.
Suppose that the libxml2 source package provided not only the
libxml2-python2.3 binary package, but also a
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:23:32PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Hypothetical example:
29 packages wait on (151 packages are stalled by) libxml2. This package
is too young, and should be a valid candidate in 8 days.
Suppose that the libxml2 source package
Björn Stenberg writes:
2) How is meta package versioning handled? The gcc-defaults package, version
1.9, is the only package providing the gcc binary (without -version suffix) of
which many packages require version = 2.95.
gcc-defaults implements it's own version handling. see the source.
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 08:41:07PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:43:24PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
The first sorts packages according to which package has the highest
number of other packages directly depend on it. Top-3: python2.3,
kdelibs, qt-x11-free.
Hi *,
Chris Halls wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:12:52PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
We didn't have OpenOffice at last release and it doesn't seem to be in
unstable yet. 'apt-cache search openoffice' only find myspell
dictionaries.
It's in contrib, package openoffice.org. It is
Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, I refer to these lists frequently. :) Thanks for putting these
together!
Thanks for using them. ;)
Yep, and libxml2 is also a dependency of libxslt. But of course,
neither of these are packages that need direct attention; the one is
held up waiting for the
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 02:59:21PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
Yep, and libxml2 is also a dependency of libxslt. But of course,
neither of these are packages that need direct attention; the one is
held up waiting for the other, which is only waiting because it's too
young. It's the
/*
You might ignore this comment...
Looking at the list of RC bugs the packages seems to fall in two
categories. Packages I don't use and packages I don't feel comfortable
in touching (glibc being an example of the latter).
I don't know the reason for some packages being marked [REMOVE]
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
A script that reads packages I'm interested in and prints out the
RC-bugs I should try to fix would be usable. Does anyone have such
script?
Yup. It's been posted before (it's called rc-alert). I've got a copy here;
if you can't
Hi!
Am 2003-10-02 12:38 +0200 schrieb Peter Makholm:
I don't know the reason for some packages being marked [REMOVE] but it
seems to me that it is not just an 'This package is not essential for
a releas an useful distribution'.
OTOH, php4 is marked for removal. I assume that I'm not the only
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
A script that reads packages I'm interested in and prints out the
RC-bugs I should try to fix would be usable. Does anyone have such
script?
Yup. It's been posted before (it's called
Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I did not dig into the reasons why php4 should be removed (BTS says
see -release, but that doesn't tell me anything), so I don't object
against it loudly. But I would certainly call it a pity if it
disappears. It would make Debian much less useful for the
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:06:27PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
Am 2003-10-02 12:38 +0200 schrieb Peter Makholm:
I don't know the reason for some packages being marked [REMOVE] but it
seems to me that it is not just an 'This package is not essential for
a releas an useful distribution'.
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:06:27PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
Hi!
Am 2003-10-02 12:38 +0200 schrieb Peter Makholm:
I don't know the reason for some packages being marked [REMOVE] but it
seems to me that it is not just an 'This package is not essential for
a releas an useful distribution'.
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:10:21PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
A script that reads packages I'm interested in and prints out the
RC-bugs I should try to fix would be usable. Does anyone
[Matthew Palmer]
Yup. It's been posted before (it's called rc-alert). I've got a
copy here; if you can't find it in the archives (recently, like 6
months) e-mail me and I'll send it to you.
And if you want to figure out why a valid package still fail to enter
testing, you can use
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
Looking at the list of RC bugs the packages seems to fall in two
categories. Packages I don't use and packages I don't feel comfortable
in touching (glibc being an example of the latter).
Personally, I recommend getting over your
Hi,
Am Do, den 02.10.2003 schrieb Peter Makholm um 12:38:
- Gnome
- KDE
I just wondered how far your understanding of these goes? Only the base
environment, or also those applications that don't really belong to -
for example - the official Gnome distribution, but are needed to make
the
Am Do, den 02.10.2003 schrieb Joachim Breitner um 16:55:
I just wondered how far your understanding of these goes?
Uh. Please don't get it wrong, and consider the .de in my mail address.
I am not at all saying that you don't understand something. Merely, I
wonder what you _meant_ by this. The
Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Do, den 02.10.2003 schrieb Peter Makholm um 12:38:
- Gnome
- KDE
I just wondered how far your understanding of these goes? Only the base
environment, or also those applications that don't really belong to -
for example - the official Gnome
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:12:52PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
We didn't have OpenOffice at last release and it doesn't seem to be in
unstable yet. 'apt-cache search openoffice' only find myspell
dictionaries.
It's in contrib, package openoffice.org. It is scheduled to
move into main around
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
There are some packages we should have if we want Debian to be a
general purpose distribution. I guess we can have a long flamewar
about which packages this includes and in the end it is the release
manager's decission but it is
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
I believe this is the bugs it would be most effective to actack when
the packages I'm personally directly interested in. It can be hard to
look at the RC-list and decide if the time is better spend fixing
libtse3, libvorbisfile3,
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:12:52PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Do, den 02.10.2003 schrieb Peter Makholm um 12:38:
- Gnome
- KDE
I just wondered how far your understanding of these goes? Only the base
environment, or also those
Steve Langasek wrote:
What's hard to see at a glance is how large collections of packages are
interrelated in their dependencies. Many packages that you *don't* use
may be having a direct effect on the packages you *do* use as a result
of their bugginess. I'd like to be able to make as much
Joachim Breitner wrote:
- Gnome
- KDE
I just wondered how far your understanding of these goes? Only the base
environment, or also those applications that don't really belong to -
I think that the equivilant metapackages are a good first step. Pity
that one of them has still not made it
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:23:36PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Joachim Breitner wrote:
- Gnome
- KDE
I just wondered how far your understanding of these goes? Only the base
environment, or also those applications that don't really belong to -
I think that the equivilant metapackages
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:43:24PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
What's hard to see at a glance is how large collections of packages are
interrelated in their dependencies. Many packages that you *don't* use
may be having a direct effect on the packages you *do* use as
39 matches
Mail list logo
