[Disclaimer: I am not part of the release team] On 09-11-13 04:49, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > I wonder why the package aspect++ does not migrate. According to > http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=aspectc++, it > seems to be because of missing arm builds. I expected that not to > matter as the package is no longer in testing, but obviously I'm > wrong. As far as I know, what counts is if the package is in unstable. And as it build in the past on arm/armel, the package is still valid on unstable. > Upstream is aware of the issue but does not consider this a priority. Do you know if the package was not only building on arm/armel but was actually useful? Then I think Debian does consider this a "priority". > I ask now what do you think would be the best course of action: I would say that depends on the answer to my question above. > a) adding some hint so that it migrates anyway > b) change to source to include only i386 and amd64 in the Architecture > line, as these are the only upstream supported architectures > c) both a) and b) > d) something else. d1: if it was never useful, ask ftp-master to remove the arm/armel packages from the archive by filing a removal request, migration will then happen automatically if I am correct. In that case also add the appropriate archs in the debian/control file. d2: if the package is useful on arm and armel, I believe it is the responsibility of the maintainer (normally with the help of upstream) to fix (or find help to fix) such issues. Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature