Andreas Tille writes ("How to enable testing migration for packages Architecture: all but depending from Architecture: any packages"): > [1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=paleomix
Mattia Rizzolo writes ("Re: How to enable testing migration for packages Architecture: all but depending from Architecture: any packages"): > It's not "not available on all architectures" but "not available on > amd64 and i386", and it's a detail configured in britney: > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/mirror/britney2.git/tree/britney.conf#n35 Thanks for that information. But, Andreas linked to the excuses page (his [1], above) which mention a lot of other architectures, where installability of the dependencies is not relevant. Eg paleomix/s390x unsatisfiable Depends: python-pysam I can see why Andreas thought the way he did. Would it be possible for the excuses to be made more precise ? Can I file a bug somewhere to request that ? > Why mailing the release team asking for a one-shot 'force' hint would be > bad? Well, I applaud Andreas's intention to try to solve the problem in a general way without additional human intervention, if possible. Andreas, is the root cause of the difficulty here that some of this scientific software is no longer buildable on i386 ? I agree that it would be nice if there were a way to flag this. I had a quick look at one of the dependencies listed in the excuses and followed some links https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python-pysam https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=python-pysam https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/bcftools https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=bcftools https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=bcftools&arch=i386&ver=1.7-2&stamp=1519144568&raw=0 and I see that on i386 bcftools fails some of its tests. Is this known ? Intentional ? Should bcftools be marked as not buildable on i386 ? Would restricting bcftools's arch list fix this problem for testing migration ? I guess maybe not. Andreas Tille writes ("Re: How to enable testing migration for packages Architecture: all but depending from Architecture: any packages"): > Please do not consider my mail as complain. I was just wondering why I > should trigger manual interaction if there might be a potential > automatic solution. If the consensus would be: Just send an e-mail > to debian-rele...@lists.debian.org I'll simply do so. I guess the release team would prefer a bug filed by reportbug, rather than a simple mail to their list. ICBW. Regards, Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.