Hi, * Adam D. Barratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-26 15:39]: > Lucas Nussbaum wrote, Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:01 PM > >On 26/09/07 at 12:53 +0200, Nico Golde wrote: > [...] > >>> === libacpi: > >>> = This package has not been in testing for 79 days. > >>> = This package has not been able to migrate from unstable > >>> to testing for 79 days. > >>> See <http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=libacpi> > >>> > >>I wonder about this one, not build on arm and hppa. What is > >>the problem with them? > > > >The package is not supposed to build on arm and hppa (since it's > >using Architecture: i386 ia64 amd64), but some parts of the > >infrastructure think it should be built there (dak? britney?). > > > >Release team, what's the correct way to deal with that? > > The arm and hppa (and m68k) binaries in the archive are from 0.1-1, which did > not have a restrictive Architecture header; the latter was introduced in > 0.1-2.
Yes forgot that acpi is not supported on the other archs in the first upload. > You (i.e. Nico) need to get the stale binaries removed from the archive - > file > a bug against ftp.debian.org with the subject "RM: libacpi [arm hppa] -- RoM; > ANAIS". Ok, thank you, will do! Kind regards Nico -- Nico Golde - http://ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted.
pgpRkcow5c7OO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
