At Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:16:14 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > #317082 is "moreinfo". Has a decision been made on how to fix this? > If not, frankly it should be downgraded to "important", because it only > hurts biarch -- meaning it isn't actually a blocker for any single > subarchitecture -- and that's not nearly as bad as holding up > every package on every single arch.
In glibc side, I added lib64gcc1 for s390x Depends in 2.3.5-4. So it's probably OK to split this report for glibc and dpkg. But, the actual fix for dpkg is under discussion, and I would like to keep discussing about it. Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]