On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:59:40AM +0700, Daniel Glassey wrote: > Package: ftp.debian.org > Severity: normal > > bibletime 2.11.2 only builds on amd64 arm64 armhf i386 mipsel > bibletime 2.10.1 is still in unstable for the other archs. It depends on a > version of libsword11v5 that does not contain the lib that it was > linked against so is unusable. (same as #913070)
This request doesn't at all make sense and highlights a bug in your package. Firstly, the fact that 2.10.1 depends on libsword11v5 is irrelevant, but does explain why libsword11v5 is still in the archive despite libsword-1.8.1 being the new package name. Secondly, why is it that bibletime is limited to these few architectures? In the changelog and your commit you say "update architectures to satisfy policy 5.6.8", which is completely useless (*why* can we only ever build on those architectures?), and policy has this to say: > Specifying a list of architectures or architecture wildcards other > than any is for the minority of cases where a program is not portable > or is not useful on some architectures. Where possible, the program > should be made portable instead. Is bibletime really that non-portable? The list of architectures seems extremely specific and unlikely, especially given that bibletime has previously successfully built on many other architectures than these. Unless bibletime has architecture-specific assembly or similar, put this back to "any" and this RM should no longer be necessary. James
