Should elmerfem also be removed from experimental?
On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:27:24 +0000 Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-ma
ster.debian.org> wrote:
> We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
> package(s) have been removed from unstable:
>
> elmer | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-3 | s390x
> elmer | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b1 | mips64el
> elmer | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b2 | amd64, hurd-i386, i386,
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel
> elmer | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b3 | armel, armhf
> elmer-common | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-3 | all
> elmer-common | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4 | all
> elmer-dbg | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-3 | s390x
> elmer-dbg | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b1 | mips64el
> elmer-dbg | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b2 | amd64, hurd-i386, i386,
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel
> elmer-dbg | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b3 | armel, armhf
> elmerfem | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-3 | source
> elmerfem | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4 | source
> libelmer-dev | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-3 | s390x
> libelmer-dev | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b1 | mips64el
> libelmer-dev | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b2 | amd64, hurd-i386, i386,
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel
> libelmer-dev | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b3 | armel, armhf
> libelmersolver-6.1 | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-3 | s390x
> libelmersolver-6.1 | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b1 | mips64el
> libelmersolver-6.1 | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b2 | amd64, hurd-i386,
i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel
> libelmersolver-6.1 | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b3 | armel, armhf
> libelmersolver-dbg | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-3 | s390x
> libelmersolver-dbg | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b1 | mips64el
> libelmersolver-dbg | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b2 | amd64, hurd-i386,
i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel
> libelmersolver-dbg | 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-4+b3 | armel, armhf
>
> ------------------- Reason -------------------
> RoQA; missed both jessie and stretch
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Note that the package(s) have simply been removed from the tag
> database and may (or may not) still be in the pool; this is not a
bug.
> The package(s) will be physically removed automatically when no suite
> references them (and in the case of source, when no binary references
> it). Please also remember that the changes have been done on the
> master archive and will not propagate to any mirrors until the next
> dinstall run at the earliest.
>
> Packages are usually not removed from testing by hand. Testing tracks
> unstable and will automatically remove packages which were removed
> from unstable when removing them from testing causes no dependency
> problems. The release team can force a removal from testing if it is
> really needed, please contact them if this should be the case.
>
> We try to close bugs which have been reported against this package
> automatically. But please check all old bugs, if they were closed
> correctly or should have been re-assigned to another package.
>
> Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
> have further comments please address them to 870...@bugs.debian.org.
>
> The full log for this bug can be viewed at https://bugs.debian.org/87
0922
>
> This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there
is
> a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by
mailing
> ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org.
>
> Debian distribution maintenance software
