On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:39:32PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 09:27 +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> > * Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> [100804 04:42]:
> >
> > > > http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/results/unstable/latest/every/list.php
> > > I think some of these are old versions of arch:all packages that for
> > > some reason have not been automatically removed. I think you should
> > > consider only the latest version of each binary package available in the
> > > suite.
> >
> > Uh? You have some examples? The auto-cruft stuff on ftp-master.d.o
> > should notice these, but currently lists none (see
> > http://ftp-master.debian.org/cruft-report-daily.txt).
>
> The EDOS list includes:
>
> gitk | 21 Jun 10 | 1:1.7.0.4-1 | gitk (= 1:1.7.0.4-1) depends on missing: -
> git-core (< 1:1.7.0.4-.)
> (and similarly for several other git binaries)
>
> But git 1:1.7.1-1 had been successfully built for all architectures at
> that time.
you are right, we have
% rmadison gitk
gitk | 1:1.5.6.5-3+lenny3 | stable | all
gitk | 1:1.5.6.5-3+lenny3.1 | proposed-updates | all
gitk | 1:1.7.0.4-1 | unstable | all
gitk | 1:1.7.1-1.1 | testing | all
gitk | 1:1.7.1-1.1 | unstable | all
I wasn't aware of that possibility, you are of course right that I should
check for that before filing an RC bug. Still, cases like this deserve
investigation why we have two versions in the archive for such a long time.
-Ralf
--
Ralf Treinen
Laboratoire Preuves, Programmes et Systèmes
Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France.
http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~treinen/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100805155651.ga25...@uranium.pps.jussieu.fr
