On So, 2015-05-17 at 14:14 +0300, Sebastian Dröge wrote: > > On May 17, 2015 1:21:29 PM EEST, Julien Cristau <email@example.com> wrote: > >On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 12:41:17 +0300, Sebastian Dröge wrote: > > > >> gst-plugins-bad0.10 is uploaded but for some obscure reason landed on > >> the NEW queue because it believed that gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad-doc > >is > >> a new binary package (it is not). > > > >Well... > > > >gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad-doc | 0.10.19-2 | oldoldstable > > | all > >gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad-doc | 0.10.23-7.1+deb7u1 | oldstable > > | all > >gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad-doc | 0.10.23-7.1+deb7u2 | > >oldstable-proposed-updates | all > >gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad-doc | 0.10.23-8 | new > > | all > > > >Certainly looks new to unstable. > > Interesting, indeed. This would mean that one of the nmus was probably > built without arch all packages or something like that. > > I'll check tonight, weird. So, FYI... 0.10.23-7.4 was a "source all" upload, but contained no binary packages at all. Not even the doc package. -7.3 was "source all amd64" and contained all binary packages, including the doc package.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part