Hi Adam, On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 07:23:00AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 07:53 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > while poco seems to be removed from testing due to some longer standing > > RC bugs there are packages (build-)depending from it remaining in > > testing (example: sitplus, see #680798). > > There seems to be some confusion here. sitplus is _not_ in testing. It > hasn't been in testing since June.
Uhmmm, sorry for the confusion. I never realised that it was removed. (I think I even somehow ignored one of your hints about this fact in the past because I was somehow sure that it was in ...) I can only tell for sure that sitplus was in testing at the point of creation of the Debian Med metapackages because it is recommended in med-rehabilitation. This was in April and we did not recieved any RC bug against sitplus so I did not checked - perhaps it was just removed because of the missing Dependency. BTW, I did not recieved any response to my "Blends metapackages upload *after* freeze" mail[1]. The Recommends in med-rehabilitation would be fixed by a new upload - but in principle it would be prefered to have sitplus inside wheezy if possible. > Without a lot of persuading, britney won't allow there to be packages in > testing which depend on packages which aren't also in testing. Build > dependencies aren't enforced, but a review of the Sources files for > testing didn't show any packages Build-Depending on poco; would you be > able to specify those? See http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-med/sitplus.git;a=blob;f=debian/control It lists libpoco-dev as Build-Depends and #680798 is exactly about the lack of the required Build-Depends. Kind regards Andreas. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/06/msg00323.html -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
