pe, 2006-01-06 kello 11:51 -0500, Kyle McMartin kirjoitti: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 02:18:38PM +0200, Martin-?ric Racine wrote: > > Anyhow, given how hppa is already among the architectures that did not > > re-qualify for Etch, I propose that, from now on, hppa be ignored for > > deciding whether a package is considered valid for going into Testing. > > Uhm. You're wrong? > > http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_qualify.html Ah. It seems I was. My mistake. Sorry! > In any case, might as well ignore it. Well, this is the second time that installation of tetex fails on hppa. According to the tetex maintainer, everything is kosher on his side, so this brings the question why installation of tetex repeatedly fails and only on hppa. Repeated occurrences of installation failure on a single architecture is a highly suspicious matter. Granted, Planner is not an essential package, but the situation is still bad omen. -- Martin-Éric Racine http://q-funk.iki.fi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digitaalisesti allekirjoitettu viestin osa