On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> wrote:
> Michael Stapelberg: > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Michael Hudson-Doyle < > > michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > >> [...] > >>> 0.7.0+ds-3), golang-protobuf-extensions (= 0+git20150513.fc2b8d3-4) > >>> -- > >>> Package: golang-github-gosexy-gettext-dev > >>> Built-Using: golang (= 2:1.6.1-2) > >>> -- > >>> Package: golang-github-hashicorp-go-msgpack-dev > >>> Built-Using: golang (= 2:1.6.1-2) > >>> -- > >>> Package: golang-github-stretchr-objx-dev > >>> Built-Using: golang (= 2:1.6.1-2) > >>> -- > >>> Package: golang-github-kr-pty-dev > >>> Built-Using: golang (= 2:1.6.1-2) > >>> > >>> This case could be ignored by the rebuild scripts, or binnmus could be > >>> trigerred to get rid of the other versions. I'm not sure it makes sense > >>> to ship > >>> that many copies of golang in stretch. > >>> > >>> I think I read something about an organized plan to get rid of such > extra > >>> packages using binnmus, but maybe I was dreaming. Ccing debian-release@ > . > >>> > >> > >> [...] > >> > > > > Updating or dropping the field seems fine with me. Could you do these 4 > > binNMUs so that we can close out this bug please? :) > > > > They seem to be arch:all packages. We cannot binNMU arch:all packages, > only architecture dependent ones. :-/ > Okay. How do you suggest we rectify this issue instead, then? -- Best regards, Michael