Re: hint for vice/1.22-2
Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 13:30 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 09:26:59PM +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
>> That's not how hinting works.
> Thought so, but couldn't get porters to remove the false dependency.
>> But that seems unlikely to happen, since you've removed s390 and sparc from
>> the architecture list for this package for reasons completely unrelated to
>> portability. If you need help getting action taken regarding a wrong
>> dep-wait on a buildd, please ask debian-release -- but don't just decide to
>> stop supporting an architecture.
> OK, please remove false liblame-dev dependency from m68k (sparc seems
> to be removed
bogus dep-wait removed on m68k
>> s390 may be a different matter since the package has been marked
>> "Not-for-us" (grumble) by the buildd maintainer; but the binary still has to
>> be removed from unstable to let the package propagate naturally into
> So vice can be arch: all, even if s390 says not-for-us, right?