On 30/11/15 20:35, Jo Shields wrote: > > > On 30/11/15 18:56, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 27/11/15 17:54, Jo Shields wrote: >>> I think this is close to startable, if a transition slot will be available >>> soon. >>> >>> Of the 17 "bad" packages on the release tracker, 2 FTBFS for other reasons >>> (and >>> are removed from Testing anyway). 3 are in DELAYED and should land this >>> weekend. >>> 2 are waiting on another DELAYED upload to land this weekend, which should >>> make >>> them RMable. 1 is in binary NEW, 2 are blocking on a package in NEW. The >>> rest >>> already have RM bugs against ftp.debian.org. >> >> Can you make those bugs block this? > > Assuming I didn't fuck it up, done. > >>> In terms of *actual* work remaining, fsharp needs a new upstream release >>> uploading (which is only awkward due to the need to +dfsg it), and xsp needs >>> some upstream work to tag/ship a compatible version (i.e. remove the >>> attempt to >>> build the old ABI entirely), both of which I can deal with on Monday. >> >> Good. > > I've uploaded a compatible transition-friendly release of xsp to > experimental, it seems to be doing okay on buildd.debian.org > >>> The only slight wrinkle in the transition is the removal of powerpc as an >>> architecture, requiring some massaging of the archive before transitioning >>> would >>> be possible. >> >> It'd be good to get that done before the transition starts. Can you ask the >> ftp >> team to do that? > > Can I do that without doing a sourceful upload with powerpc removed from > the arch list? It was my understanding that the package would end up > getting rebuilt on that arch
Yes, but the current version would FTBFS anyway, right? Anyway it's not such a big deal. That can happen once the new version has been uploaded. Cheers, Emilio
