On 10/10/16 14:01, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > On 10/09/2016 11:02 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >> On 10/09/2016 10:25 PM, Jérémy Lal wrote: >>> Now the same is going to happen with "powerpc" arch: libv8 is actually not >>> compatible with all processors supported by debian (ppc64xx are ok, though). >>> >>> Sebastiaan, i feel bad asking for your help again, but since you already >>> filled all the RM bugs once, i suppose you're in the best position to do it >>> again >>> for powerpc. >> >> Sure, the list of immediately affected packages is limited. > > There has been some progress getting the RM bugs processed. Several of > for armel are still outstanding, which may be due to the dependency > problems reported by dak for reverse dependencies. > > I thought that arch:all reverse dependencies didn't need to be removed > too, but I may be mistaken in that although dak has the option > --no-arch-all-rdeps for apparently that reason. > > I'll follow up on the outstanding bugreports to mention that only > arch:all rdeps are reported by dak in the dependency problems.
Indeed, arch:all packages don't need to be removed. If dak complains about them, point it out they are arch:all and it's OK to break them. Cheers, and thanks for looking at this. Emilio
