Re: Testers needed: aptitude 0.4.5.2
Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 01:01:27PM +0200, Vince H&K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was > heard to say: >> Daniel Burrows wrote: >>> If I don't hear about any show-stoppers in the next week or so, I'll >>> upload the new version of aptitude to unstable. Positive reports of it >>> working would also be good, so I know that someone out there really is >>> testing. :-) >> I really wish I would test, but it seems the recent aptitude FTBS on >> all arches... There is a simple sprintf problem with -Werror, which is >> easily fixed, but unfortunately, there are other problems afterwards in >> the compilation that I seem unable to fix. I'll be filing a bug over the >> next minutes. > It doesn't FTBFS on i386 :-/. I'll check the bug and see if I can > work out what's going wrong for you. I didn't have the time to file a bug report, but here are two build logs that might help you: http://experimental.ftbfs.de/fetch.php?&pkg=aptitude&ver=0.4.5.2-1&arch=amd64&stamp=1181988758&file=log&as=raw http://experimental.ftbfs.de/fetch.php?&pkg=aptitude&ver=0.4.5.2-1&arch=powerpc&stamp=1181994861&file=log&as=raw Marc -- BOFH #53: Little hamster in running wheel had coronary; waiting for replacement to be Fedexed from Wyoming pgpFHHkVYd2gh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Testers needed: aptitude 0.4.5.2
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 01:01:27PM +0200, Vince H&K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Daniel Burrows wrote: > > If I don't hear about any show-stoppers in the next week or so, I'll > > upload the new version of aptitude to unstable. Positive reports of it > > working would also be good, so I know that someone out there really is > > testing. :-) > > I really wish I would test, but it seems the recent aptitude FTBS on > all arches... There is a simple sprintf problem with -Werror, which is > easily fixed, but unfortunately, there are other problems afterwards in > the compilation that I seem unable to fix. I'll be filing a bug over the > next minutes. It doesn't FTBFS on i386 :-/. I'll check the bug and see if I can work out what's going wrong for you. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Testers needed: aptitude 0.4.5.2
Hello ! Daniel Burrows wrote: > If I don't hear about any show-stoppers in the next week or so, I'll > upload the new version of aptitude to unstable. Positive reports of it > working would also be good, so I know that someone out there really is > testing. :-) I really wish I would test, but it seems the recent aptitude FTBS on all arches... There is a simple sprintf problem with -Werror, which is easily fixed, but unfortunately, there are other problems afterwards in the compilation that I seem unable to fix. I'll be filing a bug over the next minutes. Regards, Vincent Fourmond -- Vincent Fourmond, Debian Developer http://vincent.fourmond.neuf.fr/ -- pretty boring signature, isn't it ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Testers needed: aptitude 0.4.5.2
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:48:56PM -0400, Felipe Sateler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Daniel Burrows wrote: > > > * aptitude forgetting the automatic status of packages that were > > installed with old versions of aptitude. > > > > * aptitude not saving automatic states so that apt-get can see them. > > Any way of checking this easily? I imagine a diff of the old and > new /var/lib/aptitude/pkgstates is enough for the first. How to ckeck for > the third one? The main way you'd notice the third one would be if removing packages with apt-get failed to remove their dependencies. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Testers needed: aptitude 0.4.5.2
Daniel Burrows wrote: > * aptitude forgetting the automatic status of packages that were > installed with old versions of aptitude. > > * aptitude not saving automatic states so that apt-get can see them. Any way of checking this easily? I imagine a diff of the old and new /var/lib/aptitude/pkgstates is enough for the first. How to ckeck for the third one? -- Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Testers needed: aptitude 0.4.5.2
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:23:27AM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: > Hi all, > > The ported aptitude should merge its database of automatically > installed packages into the apt database -- any packages listed as > automatic in either database will become automatic. > Dude - YOU ROCK :) This is _just_ what I've been waiting for :) Thanks for all :) Andy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Testers needed: aptitude 0.4.5.2
Hi all, As you probably noticed, Michael Vogt uploaded apt 0.7.2 to unstable with support for detecting automatically installed packages. I've ported aptitude to use the new apt interfaces instead of its internal implementation, and uploaded the result to experimental. The ported aptitude should merge its database of automatically installed packages into the apt database -- any packages listed as automatic in either database will become automatic. Since this required touching a fair chunk of the internal aptitude logic, I'd appreciate it if people could test this before I release it into the wild. Here are a few general things to watch out for that should NOT happen and should be reported as bugs: * aptitude not thinking that packages automatically installed by apt-get et al are automatic. * aptitude forgetting the automatic status of packages that were installed with old versions of aptitude. * aptitude not saving automatic states so that apt-get can see them. * aptitude failing to set automatic states when it should. * aptitude's "undo" command not restoring automatic states. * Any other weirdness regardless of whether it affects automatic states. You might want to back up /var/lib/aptitude/pkgstates before running the new aptitude, just in case you encounter a nasty bug. If I don't hear about any show-stoppers in the next week or so, I'll upload the new version of aptitude to unstable. Positive reports of it working would also be good, so I know that someone out there really is testing. :-) Thanks, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
