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: foo
> Version: 1.0.6-4
> Depends: libc6 >= 2.2.0
>
> vs.
>
> Package: foo
> Version: 1.0.7-1
> Depends: libc6 >= 2.4.0
>
> 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.
>> Thanks, that explains a lot. But it still doesn't explain why the
>>package holds back itself... Is this a bug in the testing script?
>
> No.
What makes you so sure? If it is just a circular dependency problem
like Björn said it should be caught already, like documented (and worked
before). I never noticed before that a package seems to hold back
itself though.
So long,
Alfie
--
SILVER SERVER \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\ \\ \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.sil.at
keep your backbone tidy
