On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 22:26 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> (19/05/2012):
> > One question which has come up quite a bit recently is whether we should
> > remove armhf and s390x from one or both of {broken,fucked}arches. Doing
> > so doesn't necessarily imply making them release architectures,
> > particularly while we're not treating arch-specific bugs on them as RC.
>
> Just for the records: in the current state of affairs, the autohinter is
> keen on “forgetting” to migrate binNMUs for those archs, which can
> generate more installability than if it was a bit cleverer.
Not that it makes a difference to the decision, but fwiw this is due to
the autohinter building lists of packages by walking excuses,
specifically the "dep" attribute. britney doesn't currently populate
that for packages on broken architectures (using "broken_dep" instead),
which means arch-specific migrations don't show up on the autohinters
radar.
A change such as Julien suggested recently (only using broken_dep for
source migrations) would probably help there but could do with a little
more testing.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/1337459909.29502.60.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
