On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 17:34:32 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 03:59:56PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Anyway, it has out-of-date binaries almost everywhere, so it's not even > > remotely a candidate. > > However, this is actually not correct to my perception. I guess you are > refering to > > http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=beast-mcmc > > but from my perception these are false positives. As far as I know > these issues are only blocking reasons if a package was available for > those architectures formerly but this is not the case. What are you talking about? beast-mcmc-lib | 1.6.2-1 | unstable/contrib | armel, armhf, ia64, powerpc, s390x The package *is* available on those archs in an out of date version, so it's not considered for migration. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature