Hi Holger, (repliying separately to the two pointes raised by you)
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 02:46:31PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mittwoch, 5. November 2014, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > yes, you did miss something :-) > > first link on the page: "Non-installable packages" > > https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/unstable_main/index.html > > thanks! (+doh, I guessed I oversaw these links on the debcheck pages and then > didnt find anything for the outdated and file-overwrite checks so I didnt > check again. > > The bad weather in > https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/testing_main/index.html > is still surprising to see, at this point... not at all ! The weather icons are a bit misleading (this is one reason why I wasn't such a big fan of these), one has to look at the figures. "Storm" is indicated for the "some" category, that is packages that are not installable on *some* architecture. There are 1449 of these, but 1440 of them are architecture=all, and only 9 of them are architecture-specific. The issue of architecture=all packages that are not installable on some architecture can IMHO not be solved with our current setup which makes architectures=all available on every architecture. There is only one package in the "each" category, and this is a false positive due to multiarch: lib32nss-mdns, which exists only on amd64 (this is why it shows up in the each category) and depends on an i386 package, which is deliberate in this case. -Ralf. -- Ralf Treinen Laboratoire Preuves, Programmes et Systèmes Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France. http://www.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~treinen/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141107161504.ge9...@vanadium.pps.jussieu.fr