Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> (28/05/2012): > Thanks for the clarification. I suggest we wait a few days until > somebody gets a grip on the current situation (newly-added graphs may > help figure out what would suffer from that), and we take action soon. > I should be able to look into that in the next few days. Current armel vs. armhf, and s390 vs. s390x situation, as far as installability is concerned: | $ grep -c ^+ diff.armel-armhf; grep -c ^+ diff.s390-s390x | 107 | 741 The s390 vs. s390x diff is huge, mainly because of qt/kde (an upload fixing that should happen soon). Looking at ood binaries for s390x, we have stuff like: amarok, kdenetwork, kdepim, kdemultimedia, libarchive, krusader, pykde4, zlib, kdevelop, xxdiff, digikam, and many others. → Mostly qt/kde, which should be fixed by the above-mentioned upload. I guess it makes sense not to block migration to testing until that is sorted out. Some parts of qt/kde that need migration would suffer from that. As far as I can see from a quick look, ood binaries for armhf are almost always coming with ood binaries for armel, so they need fixing anyway. I'm not sure whether promoting armhf first, and s390x only after would be nice; maybe just promote them both at the same time, as soon as qt/kde gets in a better shape as far as s390x is concerned? Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature