Santiago Vila writes: > 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 for the clarification, Santiago!
