On 08/15/2014 02:52 PM, Ben Armstrong wrote: > has been breaking them for months[0] because it fails to > exclude certain packages that tasksel excludes (those that are > either in a 'lib' section or non-main section).
i still think that this is a very wrong way to do it and we should never ever have a corrupted archive like that, in the sense that a new version of a package should not be able to enter testing if some other package is still (versioned) depending on some previous package to the effect that two version of the same package are now in a suite at the same time. this is begging for troubles and is shouldn't be that the clients (apt, or even more higher level like tasksel here) need to handle that. instead the archive software (dak) should do that, it is supposed to guarantee the consistency of the archive. i've somewhat tried to argue that, but unsurprisingly that hasn't gained any interest (#751429). having said that.. since we fail to make other people fix their stuff, we'll need to workaround it yet another time on our end. since the original problem of the inconsistent archive still remains, and the code in question is not at all performance critical in any way, i suggest we do two things: a) apply your patch "unconditionally" (= use the excludes by default and leave it at that) b) on top of that, extend it to do a two-times grep-dctrl (one with the excludes, one without the excludes) and show the difference if any. therefore, we'll have it in the build log so user could (potentially) spot any errors/surprises from it. -- Address: Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-live-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ee2d11.8040...@progress-technologies.net
