16.02.2017 00:21, Niels Thykier пишет: > Lev Lamberov: >> Hi Niels, >> >> 15.02.2017 22:48, Niels Thykier пишет: >>> To avoid any misunderstandings, #855004 need to be fixed before >>> swi-prolog/7.2.3+dfsg-6 can migrate. You probably already noticed, but >>> the FTP masters have requested a follow up from you. >> >> Does it mean that swi-prolog should be removed from testing in the first >> place and the bug should be closed, or the bug can be closed without >> removing? >> > > It means that swi-prolog/7.2.3+dfsg-6 cannot migrate until the removal > of the mips binaries built by swi-prolog/7.2.3+dfsg-5 (note the version > difference). This is what #855004 is about.
Thanks for clarification. I've found information on Excuses page [0] a bit misleading, since it says: "old binaries left on mips: swi-prolog-java (from 7.2.3+dfsg-5) (*but ignoring cruft, so nevermind*)". > The FTP masters have requested that you deal with the reverse > dependencies of the swi-prolog/7.2.3+dfsg-5 on mips. This can be > "remove them from mips as well" or ask them to disable their > "swi-prolog" support on mips (either way should work). Since no package directly depends on swi-prolog-java (packages mentioned in #855004 depend only on swi-prolog), I guess, it is possible to remove rdepends only on mips. How can this be done? As I understand, reason to remove should start with some acronym, listed on Pending Debian Package removals page [1]. But since I'm not a maintainer of rdepends, not a member of QA, not a porter, not a stable release manager and so on, I cannot request removal of rdepends, right? Should I bother rdepends' maintainers to fill removal requests? Cheers, Lev [0] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=swi-prolog [1] https://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
