You are right with both bugs - and you are far to late. So please stop filing senseless bugs about packages that just entered sid.
So please stop this bullshit filing obvious bugs. Thanks a lot. On 25.11.2017 23:46, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > Source: fswatch > Version: 1.10.0+repack-1 > Severity: important > Justification: fails to build from source > > Builds of fswatch for several 64-bit architectures failed because > libfswatch9's symbols differed somewhat from the .symbols file's > expectations, as detailed in > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=fswatch&arch=mips64el&ver=1.10.0%2Brepack-1&stamp=1511577953&raw=0 > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=fswatch&arch=ppc64el&ver=1.10.0%2Brepack-1&stamp=1511564793&raw=0 > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=fswatch&arch=alpha&ver=1.10.0%2Brepack-1&stamp=1511580094&raw=0 > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=fswatch&arch=sparc64&ver=1.10.0%2Brepack-1&stamp=1511564513&raw=0 > > A glance at the errors suggests that you should be able to address > most if not all of them by replacing arch=!armhf !i386 with > arch-bits=64 and arch=!amd64 with arch-bits=32. (IIRC, this feature > is well enough established that it shouldn't need a versioned build > dependency on dpkg-dev.) > > Could you please take a look? > > Thanks! >
