Thanks Andrew for your reply. I'll address the issue at hand first. I don't know if Takuo subscribed so I'm CC'ing him too.
* Andrew McMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011219 02:04]: > On Wed, 2001-12-19 at 07:33, Grant Bowman wrote: > > So, back to the issue at hand. The update_excuses looks like this: > > > > * evolution/alpha unsatisfiable Depends: libgnome-pilot1 (>= 0.1.63) >['gnome-pilot'] > > * out of date on arm: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from >0.99.2-1) > > * evolution/i386 unsatisfiable Depends: libgnome-pilot1 (>= 0.1.63) ['gnome-pilot'] > > * out of date on ia64: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from >0.99.0-2) > > * out of date on m68k: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from >0.15-3) > > * out of date on mips: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from >0.99.0-2) > > * out of date on mipsel: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from >0.99.2-1) > > * out of date on powerpc: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from >0.99.2-1) > > * out of date on s390: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from >0.99.2-1) > > * out of date on sparc: evolution, evolution-dev, libcamel-dev, libcamel0 (from >0.99.0-2) > > * Not considered > > * Depends: evolution gnome-pilot > > > > Would fixing libgnome-pilot1 or changing this to a recommend instead of > > depend allow evolution to move into woody? MUST all platforms be fixed > > simultaneously? > > If it has ever built for a platform then it is expected to build for it > again and therefore it is a bug if it doesn't. OK, makes sense. Thanks for the clarification > Yes, libgnome-pilot1 will need to build on these platforms before > evolution will be considered for installation in testing. I suspect > that everything will need to build on all of the "out of date" platforms > as well. That's alot of work for the 8 above platforms, I realize, assuming it's really a true Depends: package. If it only needs Recommends:, that may be good solution as well but I don't know enough about the packages yet. Intuitively, I would expect that a pilot synching function is optional for evolution. > If you want to use this I would recommend that either you (a) use > 'unstable' (personally, I would recommend this) or (b) use the > /etc/apt/apt.conf hack to let you use a mix of 'testing' and 'unstable' > packages. > [...] > Given the stability of the interfaces to evolution (gtkhtml, camel, ...) > I know that if _I_ was the DD responsible I wouldn't be too stressed for > the missing architectures at this stage. Once we get the base system > ready in January or so, _that's_ when I'd start seriously looking at it > and deciding that either (A) Alpha is not important, or (B) now is the > hour to make it all work on alpha. To do it now is really makework, or > potentially makework, and we're all volunteers. At this time of the > year there is plenty of other stuff to do in our real lives. > [...] Your recommendation of waiting to get base stabilized is a good one. thanks for taking the time to explain this. Cheers, -- -- Grant Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
