On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 18:33:46 +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > I would like to ask an unblock to sdl-stretch/0.3.1-3 > > There's an unblock already for sdl-stretch/0.3.1-2 because it was in > unstable before the freeze, but -2 failed to build in kfreebsd-i386 > and thus it never migrated to testing: > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=sdl-stretch&arch=kfreebsd-i386 > > I produced -3 and asked the package to be removed from > "Packages-arch-specific" (see #680275) so it would build in > kfreebsd-amd64 and amd64 [1], but we were asked to restrict the > architectures ourselves first (any-amd64 any-386) in a new > revision/upload of the package before granting the removal. > > The package doesn't have rdepends, so this unblock shoudln't cause much impact: > The package doesn't have rdepends, so the lack of an unblock shouldn't cause much impact. Are there users requesting this package on kbsd64, or another reason why this is particularly important to add now? Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature