Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Nobody's got back to me about fixing the broken dependencies for the > > non-i386 architectures. I've done the source CDs though. > > I never heard of this...
I mailed each message to debian-devel and debian-<architecture> > > > A quick look at the things that have changed in the archive since I > > did the i386 images reveals that the packages don't seem to have been > > fixed for the other architectures. > > Uh, no, I think nothing was moved in unless it was also compiled for > all other architectures.... Yeah, but evidently they were compiled on machines with some potato packages, which leaves them with hanging dependencies once moved into slink. > > There's a problem with trn depending on new (potato) versions of > > ncurses, and something similar with sendmail depending on libc6.1 (>= > > 2.1) IIRC. > > Huh? Why was that relevant for the 2.1r3 update? Were lib6.1 > depedning packages put in stable? No. That's the problem. Look: open:~$ cd /home/ftp/debian/dists/slink/main/binary-alpha open:.../binary-alpha$ dpkg --info mail/sendmail_8.9.3-3.deb | grep Depends: Depends: libc6.1 (>= 2.1), libdb2 (>= 2.3.16), netbase (>= 1.26-1), m4, procmail | deliver open:.../binary-alpha$ ls base/libc6.1* base/libc6.1_2.0.7.19981211-6.deb open:.../binary-alpha$ Cheers, Phil.
