Le Mon 23/06/2003, Colin Watson disait > I haven't looked at them in detail. But: > > html2ps is broken due to perlmagick, which is still at a perl 5.6 > version in testing. This was temporarily necessary because getting perl > 5.8 was more important than waiting for all of perlmagick's > dependencies, which remain very messy and complicated; my notes say that > imagemagick needs the lcms dependency chain, which needs the gdbm > dependency chain, which needs the libsigc++ dependency chain, which > needs the libgc dependency chain. Only the last of those is close to > being ready for testing yet. > > apt-file is broken due to libapt-pkg-perl, which is still at a perl 5.6 > version in testing. Again, this was temporarily necessary because perl > 5.8 was more important than waiting for all of libapt-pkg-perl's > dependencies. Right now, apt's release-critical bugs need to be fixed > before new versions of it and libapt-pkg-perl can move into testing. > > > ANd I do not see the benefits of having broken packages. > > New versions of perl and python and a number of other things were pushed > into testing a number of weeks back. This allowed substantial > improvements in many packages and unblocked a lot of development work, > but unfortunately temporarily made some other things uninstallable. This > will be resolved in time.
But why where html2ps and apt-file changed ? would keeping the old versions break something else ? -- Erwan
