On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 08:04:27AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > > Also, I'm slightly worried about the 6 non-depending packages made > > uninstallable on arm, according to > > <http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=ginac>. Is this just > > bogus or what?
> No, it's not bogus. It's a result of not having arm binary packages in > unstable. The best solution would be to have ginac built on arm so that these > 6 packages are installable on arm again (in unstable) and all can hopefuly > transition smoothly to testing. The other solutions are to not have ginac > transition to testing or to have the arm binary packages of the 6 packages > removed (or being uninstallable) when ginac transitions to testing. Since ginac in testing does not have any RC bugs at present, and the version of ginac on arm for testing is up-to-date, it's not justifiable to increase arm's uninstallable count by forcing the new version of ginac in. That leaves getting ginac built on arm, requesting removal of the arm binaries that would be left uninstallable, or leaving things as they are until etch releases or unless a decision is made to drop arm from the release. Note that if someone shows that the version of ginac in testing also FTBFS on arm, that's an RC bug on those binary packages as well, so removing them (through propagation of ginac 1.3.5) would then be acceptable... -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
