Your message dated Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:07:16 +0200 with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#838440: Bug#838440: nodejs: can't migrate to testing because of lack of armel binaries has caused the Debian Bug report #838440, regarding nodejs: can't migrate to testing because of lack of armel binaries to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected] immediately.) -- 838440: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838440 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Source: nodejs Version: 4.4.7~dfsg-2 Severity: serious Hi, I see you dropped support for armel in #818552 and requested the removal of the outdated armel binaries. That's fine. However, nodejs doesn't migrate to testing because the lack of armel binaries breaks a number of packages that depend on nodejs on armel: trying: nodejs skipped: nodejs (15, 0, 81) got: 68+546: a-3:i-18:a-0:a-11:a-0:m-0:m-0:p-35:p-0:s-1:m-546 * armel: node-almond, node-groove, node-iconv, node-leveldown, node-node-expat, node-sqlite3, node-topcube, node-websocket, node-ws, node-xmlhttprequest, qtwebchannel5-examples Those need to get their armel binaries removed as well. Or perhaps, if the version in experimental works on armel (it still has armel binaries) you could try to get that uploaded to sid? Cheers, Emilio -- System Information: Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (800, 'unstable'), (700, 'experimental'), (650, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable-debug') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386, armhf Kernel: Linux 4.7.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---On 10/10/2016 03:40 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 10/10/16 14:01, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >> On 10/09/2016 11:02 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >>> On 10/09/2016 10:25 PM, Jérémy Lal wrote: >>>> Now the same is going to happen with "powerpc" arch: libv8 is actually not >>>> compatible with all processors supported by debian (ppc64xx are ok, >>>> though). >>>> >>>> Sebastiaan, i feel bad asking for your help again, but since you already >>>> filled all the RM bugs once, i suppose you're in the best position to do >>>> it again >>>> for powerpc. >>> >>> Sure, the list of immediately affected packages is limited. >> >> There has been some progress getting the RM bugs processed. Several of >> for armel are still outstanding, which may be due to the dependency >> problems reported by dak for reverse dependencies. >> >> I thought that arch:all reverse dependencies didn't need to be removed >> too, but I may be mistaken in that although dak has the option >> --no-arch-all-rdeps for apparently that reason. >> >> I'll follow up on the outstanding bugreports to mention that only >> arch:all rdeps are reported by dak in the dependency problems. > > Indeed, arch:all packages don't need to be removed. If dak complains about > them, > point it out they are arch:all and it's OK to break them. > > Cheers, and thanks for looking at this. Thanks for the feedback, and thanks for Scott K for processing the RM bugs. All blocking bugs for armel are now fixed. The blocking bugs for nodejs on powerpc have also been fixed by Scott K, and I just clarified that the remaining packages dak complains about when removing nodejs from powerpc are all arch:all or otherwise unaffected (see: #840269) Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
--- End Message ---
