On Sunday 07 December 2008, you wrote: > I would like it to stay until someone can say that it doesn't make > sense to have that package on that arch.
We've had this broken current situation for over two years! If someone was going to work on this, they should have done so by now. I have wasted time discussing this with both Dann Frazier and Lamont Jones two times before. I'm now apparently wasting my time a third time. I would hope that the actual team maintaining a package has more say over which architectures a package should be built/considered/listed for than random buildd maintainers. The package has NEVER had amd64 or i386 listed in its debian/control file. That is a fact that can be verified in the D-I SVN repository. If the package is going to be used in the installer, it is only because other D-I components are adjusted to do so. AFAIK there are no bugs or patches in the BTS requesting that, and if there are they are ages old without any activity on them. The current state of efi-reader causes extra work for the D-I team because each time we look at buildd overview pages we get distracted by a bogus "failed". I'm very tempted to escalate this BR to the TC, be to be very honest I'm getting sick of having to expend so much effort to get a change reverted that should never have been made without the consent of the D-I team in the first place. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
