Web lists-archives.com

How to enable testing migration for packages Architecture: all but depending from Architecture: any packages [and 2 more messages]




Andreas Tille writes ("How to enable testing migration for packages Architecture: all but depending from Architecture: any packages"):
> [1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=paleomix

Mattia Rizzolo writes ("Re: How to enable testing migration for packages Architecture: all but depending from Architecture: any packages"):
> It's not "not available on all architectures" but "not available on
> amd64 and i386", and it's a detail configured in britney:
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/mirror/britney2.git/tree/britney.conf#n35

Thanks for that information.

But, Andreas linked to the excuses page (his [1], above) which mention
a lot of other architectures, where installability of the dependencies
is not relevant.  Eg
  paleomix/s390x unsatisfiable Depends: python-pysam

I can see why Andreas thought the way he did.  Would it be possible
for the excuses to be made more precise ?  Can I file a bug somewhere
to request that ?

> Why mailing the release team asking for a one-shot 'force' hint would be
> bad?

Well, I applaud Andreas's intention to try to solve the problem in a
general way without additional human intervention, if possible.

Andreas, is the root cause of the difficulty here that some of this
scientific software is no longer buildable on i386 ?  I agree that it
would be nice if there were a way to flag this.

I had a quick look at one of the dependencies listed in the excuses
and followed some links
  https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python-pysam
  https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=python-pysam
  https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/bcftools
  https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=bcftools
  https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=bcftools&arch=i386&ver=1.7-2&stamp=1519144568&raw=0
and I see that on i386 bcftools fails some of its tests.

Is this known ?  Intentional ?  Should bcftools be marked as not
buildable on i386 ?

Would restricting bcftools's arch list fix this problem for testing
migration ?  I guess maybe not.

Andreas Tille writes ("Re: How to enable testing migration for packages Architecture: all but depending from Architecture: any packages"):
> Please do not consider my mail as complain.  I was just wondering why I
> should trigger manual interaction if there might be a potential
> automatic solution.  If the consensus would be:  Just send an e-mail
> to debian-release@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I'll simply do so.

I guess the release team would prefer a bug filed by reportbug, rather
than a simple mail to their list.  ICBW.

Regards,
Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.