Re: iceweasel-l10n-all on mips
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 21:17 +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> This makes all perfect sense to me, and what I expected, if there were
> not for this entry:
>
> $ cat unstable/Packages_mips|grep-dctrl -FVersion 10.0.3esr-2|grep-dctrl -FPackage iceweasel-l10n-all
> Package: iceweasel-l10n-all
> Source: iceweasel
> Version: 10.0.3esr-2
> Installed-Size: 137
>
> How can there be a iceweasel-l10n-all of version 10.0.3esr-2 if, as you
> say, “iceweasel 10.0.3esr-2 doesn't build a binary package named
> iceweasel-l10n-all.”
Ah, I see what's going on (I think). iceweasel 10.0.3esr-2 /did/ build
an iceweasel-l10n-all package, with the same version as the source
package. iceweasel-l10n also built such a binary package, with version
1:9.0+debian-1 - i.e higher than that built from iceweasel.
The version of iceweasel-l10n-all in testing was therefore that built
from iceweasel-l10n so when that source package was removed
iceweasel-l10n-all was also removed. For unstable my suspicion would be
that both sets of arch:all packages were in the archive simultaneously
whilst both source packages were also in unstable; the source removal
thus only dropped those with the higher version. For testing, otoh,
britney would only have kept the package with the higher version so once
that was removed it was gone.
snapshot.d.o should be able to confirm whether my suspicion is correct,
at least in terms of what unstable and testing looked like immediately
before and after the removal.
Apologies for the confusion.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: