On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 05:10:24PM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote: > On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 04:07:00PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:09:25PM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote: > > > > > 3) However, the version in unstable would work, if it were in testing, > > > wouldn't it? So the question is why the package hasn't migrated down. > > > The reason appears to have nothing to do with the issues discussed in this > > > thread > > > > That is incorrect; it is simply that there is an additional issue beyond > > those discussed in this thread. > > I'm not completely sure what the "that" refers to in "that is > incorrect." Let me make a few statements, and maybe someone can tell > me if they are accurate:
'that' referred to the sentence beginning with 'the reason appears...'. Yes, the version in unstable would work if it were in testing, but, as mentioned, that requires the new apt. > 1) python-apt depends on apt, but not the reverse (for some reason I > had this backward in my mind) > 2) Building python-apt from sid source in testing will fail, because > it requires sid apt (this is the one I'm least sure of). > 3) Building sid apt in testing is asking for trouble, since sid apt > has RC bugs. > So, getting back to one of my earlier questions (not shown above), > there is no good work-around for testing. > > > I might make him aware of it if he doesn't know. I assume it was "the > greatest good for the greatest number." ajt = Anthony Towns? Correct. He is almost certainly already aware of the change, though, and of the situation with apt as well. > > It built fine everywhere except arm. As far as I can tell from looking at > > that log, this is either a problem with python or with the buildd > > environment. I do not think there is anything wrong with python-apt. The > > fact that no porter has filed a bug regarding this failure makes it seem > > even less likely that python-apt is at fault. > > > Is there anyone who should be aware of the problem who isn't? It does > certainly look as if it could be some general issue with the build > system (on that platform). The porters usually review these things and take care of them without maintainer involvement, but it might be worth checking to see if any other C++ packages had this problem on ARM. > Or will attention just naturally focus on the build problem if it's > still there when the other RC bugs go away? That is also true. -- - mdz
