Kevin Rosenberg wrote: > Bastian Blank wrote: >> An arch-any dependency is no reason to make a package also arch-any. > > There's a clear reason below. Whether you agree with the reason is a > separate issue. > >> Packages are only moved into testing if they are up-to-date. > > That's true. However, the change I made fixed a bug for a sid user > where the all package was uninstallable because the dependant any > package was not built by the autobuilder because of some lengthy > delay.
Which is a perfectly normal situation for all the Arch: all packages that depend on Arch: any packages. > With the change I made, now sid will always have the correct packages > at all times. Having that consistent working in sid is worth > something. Is it worth the same increase in size of the archive (these > packages are quite small)? For sid users (of which there are many), > I'd say the answer is yes. Not following policy because of some sid users' inconvenience is not the way to go IMHO. Note that we are thinking about fixing it globally somehow... Note also that you are trying to fix problems for sid users by introducing a workaround for all suites, so when you compare with the increase in the size of the archive you should count all suites. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
