Re: Confusing migration excuse regarding mips64el

[Afif Elghraoui <afif@debian.org>]

على السبت 16 تـمـوز 2016 ‫14:26، كتب Adam D. Barratt:
> There are other reasons why the migration might not have occurred. The
> excuse in question finishes with "valid candidate", indicating that this
> is /not/ a blocker.

Ok, I guess I expected the excuses page to have all the relevant
information.

> 
>> So what does the "nevermind" part mean?
> 
> It means exactly what it says, that mips64el is not a blocker for
> migration. If you check the logs, you will find the actual issue:
> 
> trying: python-pysam
> skipped: python-pysam (0, 16, 15)
>     got: 70+1071: a-3:i-20:a-0:a-0:a-0:m-0:m-3:p-43:p-0:s-1:m-1071
>     * mipsel: pbbarcode, python-kineticstools, python-pbh5tools
> 
> This is due to the fact that each of those packages depends on
> python-pbcore, which in turn depends on python-pysam. As you've removed
> the mipsel binaries for python-pysam, migrating the new version would
> therefore render those packages uninstallable in testing, so britney
> refuses.
> 
> As the dependent packages appear to have the same version numbers in
> testing and unstable, this also means that they will currently be
> uninstallable (and therefore RC-buggy) in unstable. If python-pysam is
> not intended to be reintroduced on mipsel, the binaries of the other
> packages will also need removing on that architecture.
> 

Thanks for clearing this up. I've requested removal of those rdeps on
mipsel and armel.

Thanks and regards
Afif


-- 
Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي
http://afif.ghraoui.name