Dear Paul,
On Wed, 11 May 2022 21:26:52 +0200 Paul Gevers <elb...@debian.org> wrote:
Source: pysph
Version: 1.0~b0~20191115.gite3d5e10-6
Severity: serious
Control: close -1 1.0~b1-1
Tags: sid bookworm
User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org
Usertags: out-of-sync
Dear maintainer(s),
The Release Team considers packages that are out-of-sync between testing
and unstable for more than 60 days as having a Release Critical bug in
testing [1]. Your package src:pysph has been trying to migrate for 61
days [2]. Hence, I am filing this bug. I think the situation is as
follows. Your package needed a new build dependency. That B-D isn't
available on all architectures, including some where your package
successfully built in the past. You'll have to request the FTP-master to
remove the binaries from those architectures. I recommend using
reportbug to file the right bug report against the ftp.debian.org pseudo
package.
If a package is out of sync between unstable and testing for a longer
period, this usually means that bugs in the package in testing cannot be
fixed via unstable. Additionally, blocked packages can have impact on
other packages, which makes preparing for the release more difficult.
Finally, it often exposes issues with the package and/or
its (reverse-)dependencies. We expect maintainers to fix issues that
hamper the migration of their package in a timely manner.
This bug will trigger auto-removal when appropriate. As with all new
bugs, there will be at least 30 days before the package is auto-removed.
I have immediately closed this bug with the version in unstable, so if
that version or a later version migrates, this bug will no longer affect
testing. I have also tagged this bug to only affect sid and bookworm, so
it doesn't affect (old-)stable.
If you believe your package is unable to migrate to testing due to
issues beyond your control, don't hesitate to contact the Release Team.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2020/02/msg00005.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=pysph
I see that this issue has been closed already.
Not sure anyway to understand what happened.
Should I still file a bug report against ftp.debian.org asking for the
removal of the binary packages from unsupported architectures?
kind regards
--
Antonio Valentino