On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:05:59AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-07-04 00:03]:
Please stop saying rude things like Please check foo to the people
who are trying to explain the state of play to you, because they are
right: it has been like this for a
* Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-07-04 00:03]:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:58:37PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Please check the update_excuses, it would make package foo _not_ a
valid candidate, if that happens.
That doesn't happen for circular dependencies (i.e. cycles of packages
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Yes, I've read the testing page with the FAQ and both the
testing_excuses and testing_output, but I can't see the reason why
libsidplay doesn't enter testing.
I've written a little script that tries to answer precisely this type of
question. You can run it here:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:37:06AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Yes, I've read the testing page with the FAQ and both the
testing_excuses and testing_output, but I can't see the reason why
libsidplay doesn't enter testing.
It can (or at least it could a few days ago), it just needs a manual
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:50:50PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Yes, I've read the testing page with the FAQ and both the
testing_excuses and testing_output, but I can't see the reason why
libsidplay doesn't enter testing.
I've written a little script that tries to
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Thanks for the great script. It shows me that the testing script seems
to be buggy, because:
- Updating sidplay-base makes 1 packages uninstallable on alpha:
sidplay-base
Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
itself
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:21:53PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:50:50PM +0200, Bj?rn Stenberg wrote:
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Yes, I've read the testing page with the FAQ and both the
testing_excuses and testing_output, but I can't see the reason why
libsidplay
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:03:38PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
itself uninstallable? What's the reasoning behind it?
Because it breaks testing rule #5: The operation of installing the
package into
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 07:21 US/Eastern, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
itself uninstallable? What's the reasoning behind it?
Easily. Example:
Package: foo
Version: 1.0.6-4
Depends: libc6 = 2.2.0
vs.
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:49:28PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 07:21 US/Eastern, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
itself uninstallable? What's the reasoning behind it?
Easily. Example:
Package:
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 13:58 US/Eastern, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Replacing foo-1.0.6-4 with 1.0.7-1 would make foo uninstallable
(becasue there is no glibc-2.4.0 in testing)
Please check the update_excuses, it would make package foo _not_ a
valid candidate, if that happens.
Hmmm, you have a
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:47:07PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:03:38PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
itself uninstallable? What's the reasoning behind it?
Because it
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:58:37PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:49:28PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 07:21 US/Eastern, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Uhm, that is somehow nonsense. How can an update of a package make
itself uninstallable?
13 matches
Mail list logo
