On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 18:25:31 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: > could you explain why you think this is of severity "serious"? In my > opinion, FTBFS should be "important" as long as there is at least one > useful architecture. > No, that's not how it works.
https://release.debian.org/stretch/rc_policy.txt Packages must autobuild without failure on all architectures on which they are supported. Packages must be supported on as many architectures as is reasonably possible. Packages are assumed to be supported on all architectures for which they have previously built successfully. Prior builds for unsupported architectures must be removed from the archive (contact -release or ftpmaster if this is the case). As skimage no longer builds on architectures where it used to build (and where it thus is assumed to supported), the "serious" severity for this bug is correct. Cheers, Julien
