Hi, On 18/11/17 16:41, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: > 2017-11-18 17:28 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill <jcowg...@debian.org>: >> On 18/11/17 16:21, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: >>> 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.
Yes. > I should _not_ file new bugs. Exact? It probably doesn't matter much, but I think it's easier to retitle existing bugs if you want to remove the kfreebsd-* binaries as well. James
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
