Hi all,
I might be completely wrong, but...
Playing around with dependencies trees, I noticed there are quite a few
obsolete Conflicts fields in the archive. Would it be worth starting a
bit of cleanup after Etch is released ? I think having the archive
cleaner from this point of view might not b
Hi,
On Tue, March 6, 2007 06:34, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 01:43 +0000, Regis Boudin wrote:
>> Playing around with dependencies trees, I noticed there are quite a few
>> obsolete Conflicts fields in the archive. Would it be worth starting a
>> bit of
On Tue, March 6, 2007 09:34, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> great, are these results published somewhere? Trivial obsoleted conflicts
> might
> be removed via a wishlist bug.
No actual result at the moment. I was playing with something not really
related and noticed the impressive number on conflicts
On Tue, March 6, 2007 11:46, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06/03/07 at 07:34 +0100, Bart Martens wrote:
>> I think that it's difficult to find an approach for an efficient
>> all-packages review about old/obsolete conflicts.
>
> it might be interesting to talk to the EDOS people about that. It
Hi again,
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 10:34 +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:43:57AM +0000, Regis Boudin wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I might be completely wrong, but...
> >
> > Playing around with dependencies trees, I noticed there are q
Oops... Just noticed I had a bug and was testing versions the wrong way
around, so all the cases where the version of a package is the same as in
the declared conflict gave the wrong result. I will upload pages with
correct data this evening.
On Sun, March 11, 2007 23:01, Regis Boudin wrote:
>
On Mon, March 12, 2007 12:44, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 12/03/07 at 12:38 -0000, Regis Boudin wrote:
>> Oops... Just noticed I had a bug and was testing versions the wrong way
>> around, so all the cases where the version of a package is the same as
>> in
>> the decla
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 13:44 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 12/03/07 at 12:38 -0000, Regis Boudin wrote:
> > Oops... Just noticed I had a bug and was testing versions the wrong way
> > around, so all the cases where the version of a package is the same as in
> > the decla
Hi everyone.
Still playing with the conflicts field in the archive, I have more and
better data. First, I decided to go as far as I could in the archive, so
my checks now cover Hamm and Bo as well, including contrib, non-free and
non-US.
I still need to move the conflicts against a specific versi
And... sending it again, to the list this time.
Hi,
Sorry for the response time, I was on holiday and quite busy.
On Sat, March 24, 2007 04:34, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> I still need to move the conflicts against a specific version of a package
>> to its own page, but things start
Hi,
Back with a bit more...
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 01:13 +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 15:18:07 +0100, Regis Boudin wrote:
> > On Sat, March 24, 2007 04:34, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > > All the data is still available at http://www.imalip.info/debian/
Hi,
The orca package was last uploaded in July 2004 (same age as the latest
upstream release), has 5 RC bugs open against it, needs to be ported to
the new rrd and tinysnmp APIs since 2 years ago. Is this package still
active upstream and maintained ? Or should we request for its removal ?
Same g
Hi all,
Over the last few days, I've been looking at Build-Depends and
Build-Depends-Indep fields. My original aim was something like trying to
have a build path to rebuild the complete archive, with only a Sources
file as starting data (basically, src:foo build-depends on libbar-dev in
the "Binar
On Tue, April 24, 2007 15:42, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> I have results I will put online as soon as I convert them in a better
>> format than a simple text list, but if you have comments on what to do
>> with this list, they are more than welcome.
>
> In the general case: nothing. It is *not* corre
On Thu, December 20, 2007 09:29, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> (random rumbling:) libgtk1 has to die (and all it's requisites, like
>> glib1.2). would be very, very, very nice if this can be accomplished for
>> lenny.
>
> And one of the reverse-deps of gtk+1.2 is wxwindows2.4, which takes up
> about 5x
15 matches
Mail list logo
