2017-11-18 17:28 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill <jcowg...@debian.org>: > 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. >
So bug #880058, as it is, will remove the armhf version and 0ad should then be able to migrate to testing. I should _not_ file new bugs. Exact? Thanks -- Dr. Ludovic Rousseau