icu, vips transition to testing
Though grep-excuses shows them to be valid candidates, both icu and vips appear to be not transitioning to testing because of making packages uninstallable on alpha (according to http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=icu and corresponding for vips), but I don't see any evidence that they actually will make packages uninstallable on alpha. Am I missing something (including possibly some announcement), or is something wrong? It seems like, disregarding m68k, icu, xerces25, xerces26, libxml-xerces-perl, vips, and nip2 should all be able to transition. Is this the case, or have I overlooked something? I don't see why these transitions should happen on their own. Thanks for any resolution or explanation. -- Jay Berkenbilt [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: icu, vips transition to testing
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 04:45:31PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: Though grep-excuses shows them to be valid candidates, both icu and vips appear to be not transitioning to testing because of making packages uninstallable on alpha (according to http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=icu and corresponding for vips), but I don't see any evidence that they actually will make packages uninstallable on alpha. Am I missing something (including possibly some announcement), or is something wrong? Standard scenario requiring a hint to update multiple packages together. This isn't done automatically because it's computationally infeasible. Hints added for both of these package groups which should take effect tomorrow as long as there are no other packages that still need to be updated in unstable. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: icu, vips transition to testing
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 04:45:31PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: Though grep-excuses shows them to be valid candidates, both icu and vips appear to be not transitioning to testing because of making packages uninstallable on alpha (according to http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=icu and corresponding for vips), but I don't see any evidence that they actually will make packages uninstallable on alpha. Am I missing something (including possibly some announcement), or is something wrong? Standard scenario requiring a hint to update multiple packages together. This isn't done automatically because it's computationally infeasible. Hints added for both of these package groups which should take effect tomorrow as long as there are no other packages that still need to be updated in unstable. Is the scenario in question that package A2 replaces package A1 and a new version of package B that used to depend upon A1 now depends upon A2 such that replacing A1 with A2 would make B in testing uninstallable even though an upgrade of B would resolve the problem? (That's a mouthful.) I'd have to think a bit to convince myself that detecting this in the general case would be computationally infeasible (though it seems like a distinct possibility that it would be for large numbers of dependencies), but I can certainly accept that it is tricky to code and, more importantly, not currently coded, so thanks for the hint. :-) --Jay -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: icu, vips transition to testing
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 11:30:06PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 04:45:31PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: Though grep-excuses shows them to be valid candidates, both icu and vips appear to be not transitioning to testing because of making packages uninstallable on alpha (according to http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=icu and corresponding for vips), but I don't see any evidence that they actually will make packages uninstallable on alpha. Am I missing something (including possibly some announcement), or is something wrong? Standard scenario requiring a hint to update multiple packages together. This isn't done automatically because it's computationally infeasible. Hints added for both of these package groups which should take effect tomorrow as long as there are no other packages that still need to be updated in unstable. Is the scenario in question that package A2 replaces package A1 and a new version of package B that used to depend upon A1 now depends upon A2 such that replacing A1 with A2 would make B in testing uninstallable even though an upgrade of B would resolve the problem? Yes. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
