On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 04:02:46PM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > Sorry, I don't see how a binNMU would help? binNMUs attempt new builds > on all the architectures where the package is buildable, but that seems > orthogonal to removing it from architectures where it isn't meant to be > buildable any more?
Sorry, I meant NMU. Was typing fast -- if a binNMU is still building for an arch, we can NMU it to exclude that arch so future binNMUs are excluded from the arch. It would likely also happen with a routine maintainer upload. When we do a partial rm, we're only removing the binary from the arch, we're not perma-blocking a package / rejecting / stripping .debs on that arch for future uploads. > After gimp (or more specifically the obsolete libgimp2.0-dev) has > disappeared from s390x, any further attempts to build gimp-texturize on > s390x will get stuck in BD-Uninstallable and gimp-texturize:s390x won't > be able to come back. > > So I think what we need is for gimp-texturize and gimp to be removed > from s390x at basically the same time, so that there is no opportunity > for gimp-texturize to have been re-introduced in between? I processed the gimp bug, so if you file a new rm bug for gimp-texturize after "Architecture: any" drops s390x (via a maintainer upload or NMU) we should be good. paultag -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Paul Tagliamonte <paultag> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://people.debian.org/~paultag | https://pault.ag/ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ Debian, the universal operating system. ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀ 4096R / FEF2 EB20 16E6 A856 B98C E820 2DCD 6B5D E858 ADF3
