On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 04:38:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > * sawfish (1.0.1-3 to 1.0.1-6) > > * Maintainer: Christian Marillat > * 11 days old (needed 10 days) > * sawmill/ia64 unsatisfiable Depends: sawfish (>= 1.0.1-6) [] > * sawmill-gnome/ia64 unsatisfiable Depends: sawfish-gnome (>= 1.0.1-6) [] > * out of date on ia64: sawfish, sawfish-gnome, sawfish-themer (from > 1.0.1-5) > * sawmill/m68k unsatisfiable Depends: sawfish (>= 1.0.1-6) [] > * sawmill-gnome/m68k unsatisfiable Depends: sawfish-gnome (>= 1.0.1-6) [] > * out of date on m68k: sawfish, sawfish-gnome, sawfish-themer (from > 1.0.1-3) > * Not considered
The current version of sawfish needs to be built on ia64 and m68k. There doesn't seem to be any particular problem according to http://buildd.debian.org/, so I don't know why they haven't been uploaded. The mentions of sawmill and sawmill-gnome are because those are 'Architecture: all' dummy packages built from the sawfish source package which have a tight versioned dependency on sawfish and sawfish-gnome respectively. Those binary packages are therefore uninstallable on those two architectures for now, but that will go away as soon as a new enough version is built. > Note that sawfish-gnome and sawfish-themer are not listed at all in > update_excuses. Why is that? Because they're binary packages, not source packages. Testing operates on source packages. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
