[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

iceweasel-l10n-all on mips



Hi,

I’m trying to understand a strange situation here (found because it
causes SAT-Britney to suggest a strange transition):

$ cat testing/*Packages_mips|grep-dctrl -FVersion 10.0.3esr-2|grep-dctrl -FPackage iceweasel-l10n-de
Package: iceweasel-l10n-de
Section: localization
Architecture: all
Source: iceweasel (10.0.3esr-2)
Maintainer: Maintainers of Mozilla-related packages <pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Version: 1:10.0.3esr-2
Depends: iceweasel (>= 10.0.3esr-2), iceweasel (<< 10.0.3esr-2.1~)

$ cat testing/Packages_mips|grep-dctrl -FVersion 10.0.3esr-2|grep-dctrl -FPackage iceweasel-l10n-de
Package: iceweasel-l10n-de
Section: localization
Architecture: all
Source: iceweasel (10.0.3esr-2)
Maintainer: Maintainers of Mozilla-related packages <pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Version: 1:10.0.3esr-2
Depends: iceweasel (>= 10.0.3esr-2), iceweasel (<< 10.0.3esr-2.1~)

$ cat unstable/Packages_mips|grep-dctrl -FVersion 10.0.3esr-2|grep-dctrl -FPackage iceweasel-l10n-de
Package: iceweasel-l10n-de
Source: iceweasel (10.0.3esr-2)
Version: 1:10.0.3esr-2
[..]

$ cat unstable/Packages_mips|grep-dctrl -FVersion 10.0.3esr-2|grep-dctrl -FPackage iceweasel-l10n-all
Package: iceweasel-l10n-all
Source: iceweasel
Version: 10.0.3esr-2
[..]

So clearly, 10.0.3esr-2 is the version of the iceweasel source on mips.
But why is then only a selection of its arch:all packages in the
Packages file for testing, and iceweasel-l10n-all is missing?

In fact, no iceweasel-l10n-all exists in testing at all, not even for
other architectures, while it ist present in unstable for all of them,
and for most of them in version 10.0.3esr-3.

Thanks for any clarification,
Joachim


-- 
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: