Hello Rafael! On 1/27/21 6:12 PM, Rafael Laboissière wrote: > I am the responsible person for the build architecture limitation. It was an > attempt > to get octave-iso2mesh into bullseye, at least for a limited set of > release-official > architectures. However, the package did not yet migrated into testing, even > though a > request for the removal of the binary packages for armel, armhf, and mipsel > have been > filed (see Bug#979623).
It would have been better to contact the architecture maintainers first and ask for help to get the package built on all architectures, so people get at least a chance to help you. Also, Debian Ports architectures don't affect testing migration. So a package failing to build on alpha, hppa, hurd-i386, ia64, kfreebsd-*, m68k, powerpc, ppc64, sh4, sparc64 and x32 won't affect testing migration. > Those architectures have been removed because the CGAL-dependent building > consumes lots > of memory. I think that other packages in Debian are been hit by the same > problem. The package builds fine even on m68k: > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=octave-iso2mesh&arch=m68k So, it doesn't seem as bad as one would think from the bug report. > I fully agree that this is not an ideal situation. I think that, once > Bug#979623 is fixed, > we should remove the architecture restriction. I think it would have been fair to give architecture maintainers at least a chance first to look into the problem before solving it with a hammer. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
