On 2025-04-09 14:25:54 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 11:23:39PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > >... > > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > > promod3 : Depends: python3-ost but it is not installable > > Depends: python3-promod3 but it is not installable > > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. > >... > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 05:31:04PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote: > >... > > On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 at 09:21, Andrius Merkys <[email protected]> wrote: > >... > > > Is it necessary to limit the architecture list for promod3? > > > I am reluctant to do so as there will be the need to manually update the > > > list every time a new architecture becomes supported by its arch:any > > > dependencies. > > > > You could make promod3 arch:any instead of arch:all, but instead of > > trying to maintain a list of architectures, simply add python3-ost as > > a Build-Dependency (even if it is not really needed). This will > > ensure that promod3 is only built on architectures where python3-ost > > is available. > > For trixie, could you just hint promod3 back into testing? > > The britney dependency check for binary-all packages is only done on > amd64 and arm64 exactly for the reason that it is quite normal that > binary-all packages are not installable on all architectures. > > If the release team wants all such packages in the archive converted > from binary-all to binary-any that's doable, but it's a bit late for > an MBF of RC bugs for trixie.
No, we don't. But the sensibility of an arch: all package that is only installable on amd64 is beyond me. Anyway, I will hint it back into testing. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
