Re: lazarus not migrating, why?

["Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>]

On 2014-05-27 13:12, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 26/05/14 19:41, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > Is it because some binaries (arch:all) got
> > renamed and decrufting scripts only pick this up after 10 days?
>
> I don't think the decruft is automatic, ftpmaster might possibly notice
> it in the cruft report, or you could specifically file a request with
> them to remove lazarus-1.2, lazarus-doc-1.2, lazarus-src-1.2.
>
> The Britney output is odd because it seems to implicate those specific
> architectures where the arch:all packages were uninstallable anyway;
> but the rename affects *all* arches...

The britney output is only as "odd" as the actual state of the 
archive... it lists the architectures where dak is still inserting the 
arch:all packages in to the Packages files; for the architectures where 
the new version of lazarus was built, dak is only including the newer 
packages, as expected.

I've queried on IRC why the older packages are still being included on 
the other architectures, but not had a response yet.

Regards,

Adam