On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> /*
>
> You might ignore this comment...
>
> Looking at the list of RC bugs the packages seems to fall in two
> categories. Packages I don't use and packages I don't feel comfortable
> in touching (glibc being an example of the
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 10:04:38PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Note that the testing scripts themselves do not examine Build-Depends
> today; such problems are only identified through manually filed RC bug
> reports. Which is not to say that we shouldn't be tracking such
> problems -- just tha
Colin Watson wrote:
> In the first example, the fact that foo depends on bar while
> simultaneously conflicting with the version of bar in the suite you're
> looking at is the thing that's bad, because it means foo can't be
> installed. The second example is OK, even though foo and bar can't be
> i
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 12:01:11AM +0200, Bj?rn Stenberg wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Ok. BTW, are you taking into account the possibility of a package being
> > uninstallable due to versioned Conflicts, and Conflicts between packages
> > which otherwise satisfy a package's dependencies?
>
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ok. BTW, are you taking into account the possibility of a package being
> uninstallable due to versioned Conflicts, and Conflicts between packages
> which otherwise satisfy a package's dependencies?
I have now added versioned conflict scanning and also checking for package
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 11:37:22PM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> There are some mathematical tools that might be useful in working with
> some of these issues (I know them from models of social networks).
When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. Since I do SQL for
a living I'd put all
There are some mathematical tools that might be useful in working with
some of these issues (I know them from models of social networks).
One can represent relations between packages as a matrix D. The rows
and columns refer to packages, and the cell is 1 if a relation exists,
otherwise 0. For e
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ok. BTW, are you taking into account the possibility of a package being
> uninstallable due to versioned Conflicts, and Conflicts between packages
> which otherwise satisfy a package's dependencies?
No, not yet. I will look into it.
--
Björn
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 01:54:13PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The term "metapackage" is a gratuitous label, here. There is a real
> > binary package (as opposed to a virtual package) in the archive named
> > "gcc", which comes from the gcc-defaults source package; and
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 01:54:13PM +0200, Bj?rn Stenberg wrote:
> Does anyone have a policy-compliant version comparator in Perl that I
> can reuse?
There's one in debbugs CVS, module source, Debbugs/Versions/Dpkg.pm,
translated from dpkg's algorithm as of a couple of years ago. It doesn't
do "~"
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 01:54:13PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Does anyone have a policy-compliant version comparator in Perl that I can
> reuse? I'm slightly confused as to the exact meaning of 5.6.11. This means
> some version compares (such as xaw3dg's 1.5+E-1 vs 1.5-25) currently return
> w
Steve Langasek wrote:
> The term "metapackage" is a gratuitous label, here. There is a real
> binary package (as opposed to a virtual package) in the archive named
> "gcc", which comes from the gcc-defaults source package; and its
> versions are handled just like those of any other packages.
Ah,
Björn Stenberg writes:
> 2) How is meta package versioning handled? The gcc-defaults package, version
> 1.9, is the only package providing the gcc binary (without -version suffix) of
> which many packages require version >= 2.95.
gcc-defaults implements it's own version handling. see the source.
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:23:32PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hypothetical example:
> >
> > 29 packages wait on (151 packages are stalled by) libxml2. This package
> > is too young, and should be a valid candidate in 8 days.
> >
> > Suppose that the libxml2 source p
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hypothetical example:
>
> 29 packages wait on (151 packages are stalled by) libxml2. This package
> is too young, and should be a valid candidate in 8 days.
>
> Suppose that the libxml2 source package provided not only the
> libxml2-python2.3 binary package, but also a li
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 02:59:21PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> > Yep, and libxml2 is also a dependency of libxslt. But of course,
> > neither of these are packages that need direct attention; the one is
> > held up waiting for the other, which is only waiting because it's too
> > young. It's
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Yes, I refer to these lists frequently. :) Thanks for putting these
> together!
Thanks for using them. ;)
> Yep, and libxml2 is also a dependency of libxslt. But of course,
> neither of these are packages that need direct attention; the one is
> held up waiting for the o
Hi *,
Chris Halls wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:12:52PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> > We didn't have OpenOffice at last release and it doesn't seem to be in
> > unstable yet. 'apt-cache search openoffice' only find myspell
> > dictionaries.
>
> It's in contrib, package openoffice.org. It
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 08:41:07PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:43:24PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> > The first sorts packages according to which package has the highest
> > number of other packages directly depend on it. Top-3: python2.3,
> > kdelibs, qt-x11-free.
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:43:24PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > What's hard to see at a glance is how large collections of packages are
> > interrelated in their dependencies. Many packages that you *don't* use
> > may be having a direct effect on the packages you *do*
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:23:36PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > > - Gnome
> > > - KDE
> >
> > I just wondered how far your understanding of these goes? Only the base
> > environment, or also those applications that don't really belong to -
>
> I think that the equivilan
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > - Gnome
> > - KDE
>
> I just wondered how far your understanding of these goes? Only the base
> environment, or also those applications that don't really belong to -
I think that the equivilant metapackages are a good first step. Pity
that one of them has still not m
Steve Langasek wrote:
> What's hard to see at a glance is how large collections of packages are
> interrelated in their dependencies. Many packages that you *don't* use
> may be having a direct effect on the packages you *do* use as a result
> of their bugginess. I'd like to be able to make as mu
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:12:52PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Am Do, den 02.10.2003 schrieb Peter Makholm um 12:38:
> >> - Gnome
> >> - KDE
> > I just wondered how far your understanding of these goes? Only the base
> > environment, or also th
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> I believe this is the bugs it would be most effective to actack when
> the packages I'm personally directly interested in. It can be hard to
> look at the RC-list and decide if the time is better spend fixing
> libtse3, libvorbisfile3
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> There are some packages we should have if we want Debian to be a
> general purpose distribution. I guess we can have a long flamewar
> about which packages this includes and in the end it is the release
> manager's decission but it is
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:12:52PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> We didn't have OpenOffice at last release and it doesn't seem to be in
> unstable yet. 'apt-cache search openoffice' only find myspell
> dictionaries.
It's in contrib, package openoffice.org. It is scheduled to
move into main around
Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Do, den 02.10.2003 schrieb Peter Makholm um 12:38:
>> - Gnome
>> - KDE
>
> I just wondered how far your understanding of these goes? Only the base
> environment, or also those applications that don't really belong to -
> for example - the officia
Am Do, den 02.10.2003 schrieb Joachim Breitner um 16:55:
> I just wondered how far your understanding of these goes?
Uh. Please don't get it wrong, and consider the .de in my mail address.
I am not at all saying that you don't understand something. Merely, I
wonder what you _meant_ by this. The ex
Hi,
Am Do, den 02.10.2003 schrieb Peter Makholm um 12:38:
> - Gnome
> - KDE
I just wondered how far your understanding of these goes? Only the base
environment, or also those applications that don't really belong to -
for example - the official Gnome distribution, but are needed to make
the com
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Looking at the list of RC bugs the packages seems to fall in two
> categories. Packages I don't use and packages I don't feel comfortable
> in touching (glibc being an example of the latter).
Personally, I recommend getting over your
[Matthew Palmer]
> Yup. It's been posted before (it's called rc-alert). I've got a
> copy here; if you can't find it in the archives (recently, like < 6
> months) e-mail me and I'll send it to you.
And if you want to figure out why a valid package still fail to enter
testing, you can use http://
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:10:21PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> >> A script that reads packages I'm interested in and prints out the
> >> RC-bugs I should try to fix would be usable.
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:06:27PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Am 2003-10-02 12:38 +0200 schrieb Peter Makholm:
> > I don't know the reason for some packages being marked [REMOVE] but it
> > seems to me that it is not just an 'This package is not essential for
> > a releas an useful distri
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:06:27PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Am 2003-10-02 12:38 +0200 schrieb Peter Makholm:
> > I don't know the reason for some packages being marked [REMOVE] but it
> > seems to me that it is not just an 'This package is not essential for
> > a releas an useful distribution'.
Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I did not dig into the reasons why php4 should be removed (BTS says
> "see -release", but that doesn't tell me anything), so I don't object
> against it loudly. But I would certainly call it a pity if it
> disappears. It would make Debian much less useful f
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
>> A script that reads packages I'm interested in and prints out the
>> RC-bugs I should try to fix would be usable. Does anyone have such
>> script?
>
> Yup. It's been posted before (it's
Hi!
Am 2003-10-02 12:38 +0200 schrieb Peter Makholm:
> I don't know the reason for some packages being marked [REMOVE] but it
> seems to me that it is not just an 'This package is not essential for
> a releas an useful distribution'.
OTOH, php4 is marked for removal. I assume that I'm not the onl
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> A script that reads packages I'm interested in and prints out the
> RC-bugs I should try to fix would be usable. Does anyone have such
> script?
Yup. It's been posted before (it's called rc-alert). I've got a copy here;
if you can'
/*
You might ignore this comment...
Looking at the list of RC bugs the packages seems to fall in two
categories. Packages I don't use and packages I don't feel comfortable
in touching (glibc being an example of the latter).
I don't know the reason for some packages being marked [REMOVE] but
40 matches
Mail list logo