On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 12:48 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 04/04/2013 10:10 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > None of arm, m68k or ppc64 are in Debian right now, so the package's > > buildability on them doesn't seem particularly relevant. > > True! But the additional symbol tables for these architectures shouldn't > hurt the other architectures as well. The diff is naturally large as it > contains the additional symbol tables.
If there are other reasons to migrate the package, potentially, but... > > Which versions of the package FTBFS on s390x? There are setools binary > > packages in testing on that architecture, so it obviously built at some > > point; what changed? > > Interesting. I am pretty sure there was an FTBFS on s390x, I'll have to > check my mail from that time. > > Nick, do you remember why you fixed the symbol table for s390x? In a later mail he said the s390x problem was introduced in -3.1 when the arm/m68k symbols files were added. If that's the case then as wheezy only has -3 it isn't affected. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
