le jeu 07-02-2002 � 12:33, Sven a �crit : > > I also looked at update_excuses.html for ocaml, but here it's reported > > as valid candidate so I can't understand why it currently isn't in > > testing. > > I also don't understand, but anyway, we will have to wait at least 2 more > weeks for ocaml 3.04-6 going into testing, after it has been rebuilt for all > arches. If there is no major problem with it, i will wait until 3.04-6 enters > testing for future changes. >
>From http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_output.txt : -------------------------- skipped: ocaml (0) (120+0) got: 18+0: a-18 * alpha: camlp4, camlzip, lablgl, mlgtk, ocamltk -------------------------- So, as far as I understand, installing ocaml would break the binary packages camlp4, camlzip, lablgl, mlgtk and ocamltk. Indeed, they depend on ocaml <= 3.03... and no "testing" version exists for them. >From http://people.debian.org/~jules/testingfaq.html: ----------------------------------- 5. The operation of installing the package into testing must not break any packages currently in testing. (See below for more information) [...] * How could installing a package into testing possibly break other packages? The structure of the distribution archives is such that they can only contain one version of a package; a package is defined by its name. So, when the source package acmefoo is installed into testing, along with its binary packages acme-foo-bin, acme-bar-bin, libacme-foo1 and libacme-foo-dev, the old version will be removed. The old version may have provided a binary package with an old soname of a library, such as libacme-foo0. Removing the old acmefoo will remove libacme-foo0, which will break any packages which depend on it. Evidently, this mainly affects packages which provide changing sets of binary packages in different versions (in turn, mainly libraries). However, it will also affect packages upon which versioned dependencies have been declared of the ==, <= or << varieties. * ----------------------------------- In other words, dependencies such as "<=" (discussed in the thread about ocaml packaging policy) have dramatic drawbacks... As for now, the best is probably to ask the release manager to decide that ocaml-3.04 must be installed despite these problems. ---------------------------- 6. Are there any exceptions? I'm sure acmefoo has just made it into testing despite not satisfying all of the points you listed. I believe the release manager can override the above in two ways. He is capable of deciding that the breakage caused by the installation of a new library will make things better rather than worse, and letting it go in along with its flotilla of dependents. He is also capable of manually removing packages from testing that would be broken, so that new stuff can be installed ---------------------------- Judica�l. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.lri.fr/~jcourant/ (+33) (0)1 69 15 64 85 "Heureux ceux qui savent rire d'eux-m�mes : ils n'ont pas fini de s'amuser !" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
