On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 08:51:28AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > gpc-2.1-3.3 | 1:3.3.20030409-0pre8 | unstable | alpha, hppa, ia64, ... > > ^ > > gpc-2.1-3.3-doc | 1:3.3.20030409-0pre6 | unstable | all > > ^ > > Is this deliberate? The pre7 and pre8 .changes both list the -doc package > > in the Binary: field, but don't seem to build it. > Got complaints, that all binaries, which _can_ be built, should be in > the control file
Dunno about that; I was only saying that because it made me wonder if you really did mean to have the -doc not build for Debian. > (somebody (Ryan, lamont??) told me that gcc-3.0 was > removed from the archive, because the control file only contained the > binaries which were actually built). We don't keep old packages around -- so if you upload foo_1.1.dsc and that no longer builds foo-doc.deb, then foo-doc_1.0_i386.deb won't be kept around; and if foo-doc isn't listed in the Binary: field, it'll be semi-automatically removed. If it is listed in the Binary: field, we'll probably assume something weird's going on and ask first; but the end result is that it needs to be removed or updated either way. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
