On 2012-08-04 11:42, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:14:15 +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: >> OK, that's not what we want. There shouln't be packages "kept back". >> > FWIW that result doesn't seem all that bad to me.
In squeeze2wheezy/main piuparts test I currently see 172 passed logs and 68 failed logs with the string 'packages have been kept back' (there are a total of 122 failing packages currently and 234 packages that cannot be tested due to dependencies failing), something that should not happen on squeeze->wheezy updates if all upgrade paths are well defined. Some of these may be due to insufficiencies in apt in squeeze, but that means the packages in wheezy will have to work around this to ensure clean upgrades without keeping old package versions. And my proposed patch is a minimal change that seems to be sufficient to push apt a little bit into the right direction in some corner cases where apt wouldn't decide correctly otherwise ... I expect about 60 piuparts failures to be fixed by my patch (this would be verified in squeeze2sid once an updated gcc-4.4 enters sid). > If that's the only > problem I wouldn't consider this bug RC. I guess there might be more > issues (or in any case a different result) with libc6-dev on top though, > since libc6-dev Breaks squeeze's gcc-4.4. Any chance you could test > that? piuparts ... -d squeeze -d wheezy \ --extra-old-packages=gcc-4.4,libgcj-bc --apt libc6-dev passes without problems, and there apt decides correctly to remove the old gcj-4.4-base and libgcj10. Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/501d0a06.4050...@abeckmann.de
