Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> writes: > Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> (2024-04-15): >> On the other hand, it's taken over a month so far. Rather than living in >> hope for another month, I thought it might be worth removing this as a >> blocker (I've had to tell a couple of people that they'll need to wait >> before they can do their salsa-CI tests :-/ ) > > I'm not suggesting living in hope, I'm suggesting to get the ball rolling. > > The commit lists #1066070, which was a duplicate (because -ECOFFEE) of > #1066069, which got fixed rather quickly. So what we would need are > rebuilds of the reverse dependencies (which I haven't checked right now > would be sufficient to get them fixed), which one could request on the > release team side. Oh, I seem to have managed to overlook the bit with you closing it. Sorry about that. Anyway, that's encouraging. If I can work out what needs prodding, and where to prod, I'll give it a go. > Regarding #1066071, that needs a fix in the package first. Looking at > tracker, it's not migrating any time soon as far as I can see (due to > regressions on 32-bit arms), and I'm not sure how fixing the udeb would > interfere there. So one could start with an upload. I had looked at fixing that, but didn't immediately know in which direction the mismatch should be resolved which convinced me that I probably don't know enough about the background to be doing NMUs. Which is what lead me to try working around it instead. Cheers, Phil. -- Philip Hands -- https://hands.com/~phil
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature