On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:34:41 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Stefano Zacchiroli (z...@debian.org) [110908 19:22]:
>> Hopefully, not having $pkg on $arch would raise the visibility of the >> issue and attract attention to fix the issue. In the meantime, the >> fact that $pkg is not on $arch (and the justification for that) could >> be used by the release team as a basis to decide whether $arch is in >> a releasable state or not, exactly as it would be if $pkg were a NEW >> package in the archive. > > I disagree with "let's first remove things". If a package like ruby > doesn't build on sparc this bug report is RC exactly as long as sparc is > a release arch. The release team has (and does) override such bug > reports for testing migration if appropriate. Removing the binary > package doesn't help at all but just makes things worse. So please don't > do it, especially for packages with reverse dependencies. The big issue (as I understood from the OP) here is that the toolchain is not keeping up. Why should the maintainers of other software be bothered about that architecture? -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/j4foj5$4ut$1...@dough.gmane.org
