Hi Paul, I did not file the corresponding bugs. According to our workflow, will I or the release team file those bugs?
If it is me who should file those bugs, I think the default severity should be serious. When all related bugs are resolved by reverse dependencies, I plan to remove ppc64el architecture from both src:luajit and src:luajit2, so that malfunctional binary packages are no longer built for it. On Mon, 2022-06-20 at 22:10 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi Mo, > > On 13-06-2022 05:20, M. Zhou wrote: > > So let's inform the reverse dependencies to remove ppc64el support, > > or switch back to lua. > > Just curious, have you already done so? If yes, care to share the bug > report numbers? Otherwise I assume you expected me to file those bugs? > > Paul > > elbrus@coccia:~$ dak rm --no-action -R --suite testing luajit > --architecture=ppc64elW: -a/--architecture implies -p/--partial. > Will remove the following packages from testing: > > libluajit-5.1-2 | 2.1.0~beta3+dfsg-6 | ppc64el > libluajit-5.1-dev | 2.1.0~beta3+dfsg-6 | ppc64el > luajit | 2.1.0~beta3+dfsg-6 | source, ppc64el > > Maintainer: Enrico Tassi <gareuselesi...@debian.org> > > ------------------- Reason ------------------- > > ---------------------------------------------- > > Checking reverse dependencies... > # Broken Depends: > lua-ljsyscall: lua-ljsyscall > > # Broken Build-Depends: > bpfcc: libluajit-5.1-dev > luajit > cantor: libluajit-5.1-dev > dnsjit: libluajit-5.1-dev > luajit > efl: libluajit-5.1-dev > fastnetmon: libluajit-5.1-dev > love: libluajit-5.1-dev > lua-ljsyscall: luajit > nageru: libluajit-5.1-dev > nginx: libluajit-5.1-dev > obs-studio: libluajit-5.1-dev > suricata: libluajit-5.1-dev > uftrace: libluajit-5.1-dev > wrk: libluajit-5.1-dev > luajit > > Dependency problem found.