On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 11:03:42AM +0200, Erwan David wrote: > Le Mon 23/06/2003, Colin Watson disait > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 10:36:27AM +0200, Erwan David wrote: > > > Several packages like html2ps or apt-file are broken in sarge because > > > they were put from sid before their dependencies. The coming to sarge > > > of a package should not be done if it makes it uninstallable. > > > > This is generally the rule. Sometimes bad things have to happen to a > > couple of packages in order to benefit a large number of packages > > elsewhere, though. > > For html2ps and apt-file, they have been broken in sarge for > weeks...
I haven't looked at them in detail. But: html2ps is broken due to perlmagick, which is still at a perl 5.6 version in testing. This was temporarily necessary because getting perl 5.8 was more important than waiting for all of perlmagick's dependencies, which remain very messy and complicated; my notes say that imagemagick needs the lcms dependency chain, which needs the gdbm dependency chain, which needs the libsigc++ dependency chain, which needs the libgc dependency chain. Only the last of those is close to being ready for testing yet. apt-file is broken due to libapt-pkg-perl, which is still at a perl 5.6 version in testing. Again, this was temporarily necessary because perl 5.8 was more important than waiting for all of libapt-pkg-perl's dependencies. Right now, apt's release-critical bugs need to be fixed before new versions of it and libapt-pkg-perl can move into testing. > ANd I do not see the benefits of having broken packages. New versions of perl and python and a number of other things were pushed into testing a number of weeks back. This allowed substantial improvements in many packages and unblocked a lot of development work, but unfortunately temporarily made some other things uninstallable. This will be resolved in time. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
