On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:11:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 08:11:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I CCed you the bugreport where i explain everything, but the packages are :
> > libpgsql-ocaml
> > ocamlsdl
> > These are the source packages.
>
> You missed:
> o
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 07:56:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Maybe Stefano could upload a version to testing-proposed-updates that
> drops the these two libraries. It should be ok, since meta-ocaml is an
> arch: all package, and don't needs the autobuilders.
Done: meta-ocaml 3.06.1testing
--
S
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:11:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 08:11:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I CCed you the bugreport where i explain everything, but the packages are :
> > libpgsql-ocaml
> > ocamlsdl
> > These are the source packages.
>
> You missed:
> o
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 11:31:21PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Yes; you were. I'm focussing on gcc and perl and such things at the
> > moment, and as of yet no one else is really able to do anything about this
> > stuff while I'm busy; hopefully both those things will c
Anthony Towns writes:
> Yes; you were. I'm focussing on gcc and perl and such things at the
> moment, and as of yet no one else is really able to do anything about this
> stuff while I'm busy; hopefully both those things will change soon enough.
and maybe python ...
AFAICS there are two issues:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 11:31:21PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Yes; you were. I'm focussing on gcc and perl and such things at the
> > moment, and as of yet no one else is really able to do anything about this
> > stuff while I'm busy; hopefully both those things will c
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 08:11:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> I CCed you the bugreport where i explain everything, but the packages are :
> libpgsql-ocaml
> ocamlsdl
> These are the source packages.
You missed:
ocaml-core | 3.06.3 | unstable | all
ocaml-libs | 3.06.3 | u
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 02:17:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:05:59PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 09:33:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Well, i personnaly think that i
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 09:56:22PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Considering the libvorbis case, what needs to happen is the
> remaining packages that depend on libvorbis0 be recompiled
> against libvorbis0a.
The only packages that still dep on libvorbis0 in unstable/i386 seem to be:
bitco
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:05:59PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 09:33:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Well, i personnaly think that in some case it would be much simpler to
> > > _remove_ the packages fro
Considering the libvorbis case, what needs to happen is the
remaining packages that depend on libvorbis0 be recompiled
against libvorbis0a.
Then, optionally, remove the packages from testing.
I would have thought that libvorbis0 and dependent packages merit a removal
from testing because woody
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 09:33:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, i personnaly think that in some case it would be much simpler to
> > _remove_ the packages from testing, and let the new versions enter
> > testing as they can.
>
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, i personnaly think that in some case it would be much simpler to
> _remove_ the packages from testing, and let the new versions enter
> testing as they can.
Yes, this generally happens. It's not really a good thing though -- it
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 05:21:41PM +1000, Paul Hampson wrote:
> Anyway, now that I've done that... back to your actual interest:
> ocaml is also being recurred:
> i386: libpgsql-ocaml-dev, libsdl-ocaml, libsdl-ocaml-dev, ocaml-libs
>
> From sources:
> libpgsql-ocaml<== Unstable version bre
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 08:42:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 12:31:44PM +1000, Paul Hampson wrote:
> Hardly, there are many RC bugs or FTBFS bugs in those. I think the main
> issue is that the PTS does not show the list of packages holding up. IT
> is not as easy, since th
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 09:21:15AM -0400, Michael Furr wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 02:42, Sven Luther wrote:
> > * chromium : 1 RC bug, out of date on arm.
> Note this RC bug is tagged "sarge" so it doesn't really apply. The only
> thing holding this back is the arm autobuilder which I'm ho
On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 02:42, Sven Luther wrote:
> * chromium : 1 RC bug, out of date on arm.
Note this RC bug is tagged "sarge" so it doesn't really apply. The only
thing holding this back is the arm autobuilder which I'm hoping will
retry sometime soon with the newly uploaded openal package.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 12:31:44PM +1000, Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:30:42PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 05:59:26PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 04:40:31PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > depth, i cannot help all that mu
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:30:42PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 05:59:26PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 04:40:31PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > depth, i cannot help all that much about it, and libvorbis is a valid
> > > candidate, but his install
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 12:54:34PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>> I suggest we remove packages which haven't entered testing after more
>> more then 300 days.
>
> Packages can be stuck out of testing due to their dependencies, so 300 days
> of lag on
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 12:54:34PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I suggest we remove packages which haven't entered testing after more
> more then 300 days.
Packages can be stuck out of testing due to their dependencies, so 300 days
of lag only indicates a serious problem with a package, it
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 11:05:52PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:30:42PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 05:59:26PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 04:40:31PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > depth, i cannot help all that m
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 09:10:30PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:30:42PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ideally the testing script should be modified to output more verbose
> > data, but i don't speak perl.
>
> That's no excuse, since it's (nowadays) written in Python. :)
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 03:10:46PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Michael Banck]
> > I object. Not entering testing could very well happen if the
> > package's dependencies are broken/buggy/uninstallable.
>
> Yes, there are many reasons for a package to get stuck in unstable.
>
> But I beli
24 matches
Mail list logo
