Re: Who declares optional packages extra?
Richard B. Kreckel wrote: Hi, Also, I'm slightly worried about the 6 non-depending packages made uninstallable on arm, according to http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=ginac. Is this just bogus or what? No, it's not bogus. It's a result of not having arm binary packages in unstable. The best solution would be to have ginac built on arm so that these 6 packages are installable on arm again (in unstable) and all can hopefuly transition smoothly to testing. The other solutions are to not have ginac transition to testing or to have the arm binary packages of the 6 packages removed (or being uninstallable) when ginac transitions to testing. Cheers Luk -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D signature.asc Description: PGP signature signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Who declares optional packages extra?
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 08:04:27AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: Also, I'm slightly worried about the 6 non-depending packages made uninstallable on arm, according to http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=ginac. Is this just bogus or what? No, it's not bogus. It's a result of not having arm binary packages in unstable. The best solution would be to have ginac built on arm so that these 6 packages are installable on arm again (in unstable) and all can hopefuly transition smoothly to testing. The other solutions are to not have ginac transition to testing or to have the arm binary packages of the 6 packages removed (or being uninstallable) when ginac transitions to testing. Since ginac in testing does not have any RC bugs at present, and the version of ginac on arm for testing is up-to-date, it's not justifiable to increase arm's uninstallable count by forcing the new version of ginac in. That leaves getting ginac built on arm, requesting removal of the arm binaries that would be left uninstallable, or leaving things as they are until etch releases or unless a decision is made to drop arm from the release. Note that if someone shows that the version of ginac in testing also FTBFS on arm, that's an RC bug on those binary packages as well, so removing them (through propagation of ginac 1.3.5) would then be acceptable... -- 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/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Who declares optional packages extra?
Hi, Debian Installer wrote: There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): libginac1.3c2a-dbg_1.3.5-1_i386.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and the package wrong please fix the package so that this disparity is fixed in the next upload. If you feel the override is incorrect then please reply to this mail and explain why. Last time I uploaded that package (then libginac1.3c2a-dbg_1.3.4-1_i386.deb) it was optional. (I've just checked the old upload file.) Did it really spontaneously become extra? If so, why? Also, I'm slightly worried about the 6 non-depending packages made uninstallable on arm, according to http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=ginac. Is this just bogus or what? -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Who declares optional packages extra?
Richard B Kreckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Last time I uploaded that package (then libginac1.3c2a-dbg_1.3.4-1_i386.deb) it was optional. (I've just checked the old upload file.) Did it really spontaneously become extra? If so, why? ftp-master sets the priorities in the overrides file. Debugging packages should generally be extra; most users will not want them installed. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Who declares optional packages extra?
On 10794 March 1977, Richard B. Kreckel wrote: libginac1.3c2a-dbg_1.3.5-1_i386.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. Last time I uploaded that package (then libginac1.3c2a-dbg_1.3.4-1_i386.deb) it was optional. (I've just checked the old upload file.) Did it really spontaneously become extra? If so, why? Also, I'm slightly worried about the 6 non-depending packages made uninstallable on arm, according to http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=ginac. Is this just bogus or what? Its the -dbg thats extra. A debug package cant be optional, its extra, as a normal user sure doesnt want it, its for some special use. -- bye Joerg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
