On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 02:09:41AM -0700, Antonio Russo wrote:
I'm trying to understand if my recent upload to unstable is "good enough". Looking at the tracker page [1], I see a few "excuses" under "Issues prevent migration": 1. Missing build on riscv64 2. Autopkgtest deferred on riscv64: missing arch:riscv64 build 3. Autopkgtest for dante/1.4.4+dfsg-1: amd64: No tests, superficial or marked flaky ♻ (reference ♻), arm64: No tests, superficial or marked flaky ♻ (reference ♻), i386: No tests, superficial or marked flaky ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: No tests, superficial or marked flaky ♻ (reference ♻), s390x: No tests, superficial or marked flaky ♻ (reference ♻) 4. Lintian check waiting for test results on riscv64 - info 5. Too young, only 1 of 5 days old A straightforward read of this is that there are 5 issues, and all need to be resolved for migration. (5) can be satisfied by just waiting, but the others will require action on my part. Is this correct?
No. Excuse output is not structured as strictly as you think.
In particular, (1) seems to be causing (4). Looking at the build logs, the reason for the riscv64 build failure is "Needs-Build (Extra-Depends: libc-bin (>= 2.42-5))" I don't understand what that means, because [3] indicates that libc-bin is at 2.42-6 in riscv64.
In that case you can ignore the Extra-Depends part.The package is in Needs-Build, together with other ~300 packages, because the riscv64 buildds are too slow (see https://buildd.debian.org/status/architecture.php?a=riscv64&suite=sid and https://buildd.debian.org/stats/riscv64.png). You need to wait another week or two, you don't need to do anything else to resolve this.
-- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature