On 28/02/16 16:26, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:27:09PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 26/02/16 00:47, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >>> Some of the failures above have already been fixed. Please binNMU the >>> following packages: >> >> Scheduled. > > Thanks. All of the builds seem to have finished, but for some reason the > transtion page still lists several of the packages in an "unknown" > state, even though the rebuilt packages are already in the archive for a > while. Any idea why is that?
Those "?!" are supposed to mean both is_good and is_bad match. Taking ruby-god for example: The "god" package has: Depends: ruby-god That matches is_bad The "ruby-god" package has: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.4), libgmp10, libruby2.2 (>= 2.2.0~1) | libruby2.3 (>= 2.3.0~preview2), ruby (>= 1:2.2) | ruby (>= 1:2.3~0) That matches is_good. Hence both is_good and is_bad match. This could be solved in this tracker by changing is_bad to: is_bad = .depends ~ /ruby2.2/ & ! .depends ~ /ruby2.3/; I've done that, the tracker looks better now. > The next round of binNMUs is: > > hyperestraier > remctl > ruby-dep-selector > ruby-fftw3 > ruby-gherkin > ruby-github-markdown > ruby-gnome2 > ruby-grib > ruby-hdfeos5 > ruby-hpricot > ruby-http-parser.rb > ruby-lapack > ruby-mpi > ruby-msgpack > ruby-multibitnums > ruby-netcdf > ruby-nokogumbo > ruby-password > ruby-raindrops > ruby-rpam-ruby19 > ruby-sqlite3 > thin Scheduled. Cheers, Emilio