Hi, On 18/11/17 16:21, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: > Hello, > > 2017-11-18 6:21 GMT+01:00 Petter Reinholdtsen <p...@hungry.com>: > >> [Ludovic Rousseau] >>> 0ad (0.0.22-2) unstable; urgency=medium >>> . >>> * Fix "0ad FTBFS with on armhf with gcc 7: error: call of overloaded >>> 'abs(unsigned int)' is ambiguous" by removing support of armhf >>> (Closes: #879071) >> >> Note, this "fix" did not work, as there are armhf binaries in the archive >> and the new version is not allowed to propagate into testing until the >> armhf binaries are updated to the latest version or removed. Did you >> file a request for removal? >> > > Adrian Bunk filed bug #880058 "RM: 0ad [armhf] -- NBS; no longer built on > armhf" > > I am not sure it will be enough since the versions for arm64, > kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 must also be removed. > Should I create 3 new bugs for the other 3 architectures?
You can just retitle the original bug, with a message explaining the situation (assuming it isn't closed before then). Currently we have: 0ad | 0.0.21-2 | stretch | source, amd64, armhf, i386 0ad | 0.0.21-2 | sid | source, armhf, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386 0ad | 0.0.22-3 | sid | source, amd64, i386 So I think only armhf and kfreebsd-* need removing (not arm64). kfreebsd doesn't affect testing migration in any case. Thanks, James
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
