On 14/10/16 10:18, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:59:07AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 13/10/16 08:54, Andreas Tille wrote: >>> Hi Julien, >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:14:48AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: >>>>> please add a force-hint to add the testing migration of >>>>> >>>>> sra-sdk 2.7.0-1 >>>>> >>>>> It was discussed with upstream that only amd64 architecture will >>>>> be supported officially. Since we try to fix build issues on other >>>>> architectures step by step there is no point in delaying the >>>>> testing migration for version 2.7.0-1 for amd64. >>>>> >>>> NAK, this isn't how that works. The package has out of date binaries in >>>> unstable, that needs to be fixed one way or the other. >>> >>> Sorry for bothering you: what binaries are out of date, how does this >>> come and how can I find this out? Would a simple upload of a new >>> package version fix this? >> >> sra-toolkit | 2.3.5-2+dfsg-1 | unstable | i386, kfreebsd-amd64, >> kfreebsd-i386 >> sra-toolkit | 2.7.0-1 | unstable | amd64 >> >> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=sra-sdk >> >> Either you fix the build (preferably), or you request the removal of the >> broken >> binaries by filing a bug against ftp.debian.org. To fix the build, you need >> to fix >> >> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ncbi-vdb&suite=sid >> >> on at least i386. > > Upstream explicitly confirmed that only amd64 is supported (for ncbi-vdb > and sra-sdk). I perfectly agree that it would be an optimal situation > if also i386 would be supported but for the moment the unavailability > for this architecture should not block the migration to testing. > > So I filed #840683 to remove the unsupported architectures which was > just closed thanks to quick ftpmasters. :-) > > Am I correct now that a force-hint is apropriate now?
No, it should just migrate without one, given it's arch:any and not arch:all. Cheers, Emilio
