On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:41:41PM +0000, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Re: still some reverse dependencies
Yes, I believe I stated that in my original mail? libaws is FTBFS on all archs because of some ada transition or something. ldap-haskell is dep-wait on ghc6, which is broken on several archs. armel is, in general, not caught up with binNMUs yet; this is a consequence of the pre-built armel binaries having been forklifted into the Debian archive, instead of being rebuilt against unstable which already had libldap-2.4-2 at that time. armel doesn't block testing propagation, I don't believe it should block removing this package from unstable either. kolab is FTBFS on hppa/sparc because of an RC bug in ghostscript on those archs. directory-administrator and sylpheed-claws are broken on ia64 because of RC bugs #463372 and #463369. ftp-proxy appears to be a regression since the last time I looked, due to a maintainer upload built against stale packages; thanks, I'll binNMU that away. And these: > ** autofs has an unsatisfied build-dependency: libldap-dev > ** courier has an unsatisfied build-dependency: libldap-dev > ** courier-authlib has an unsatisfied build-dependency: libldap-dev > ** proxy-suite has an unsatisfied build-dependency: libldap-dev are of course spurious. Is this an adequate explanation, or should I understand your message as requiring that all of the RC-buggy reverse-dependencies be fixed in unstable before this package can be removed? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
