On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:56:01PM +0200, Andreas Hilboll wrote: > I'm sorry for maybe not understanding Debian (which is very well > possible). I'm only interested in amd64, which means that from my point > of view there should be no reason why the amd64 pandas should be held up > by bugs on other architectures.
This usually happens by design: When we make a stable release, we want all architectures to be in sync regarding package versions. Because stable is just a snapshot of testing at release time, there is a rule saying "packages only propagate to testing from unstable when they are built for every architecture". However, this rule is applied automatically and there is usually no need to enforce it using a serious severity, so I wonder if bugs #790925 and #814795 really have to be "serious". In fact, FTBFS does not always mean the bug is RC. The rule is actually "package FTBFS in a release architecture but built ok in the past". The package was removed from testing, so there is no "past" (unless we want to consider stable as the "past"). In other words: Would the maintainer consider making #790925 and #814795 just "important" for pandas to propagate to testing on the architectures it currently builds? Thanks.
