On Monday 11 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote: > > $ rmadison linux-kernel-di-arm-2.6 > > linux-kernel-di-arm-2.6 | 1.10 | etch-m68k | source > > linux-kernel-di-arm-2.6 | 1.10etch3 | oldstable | source > > linux-kernel-di-arm-2.6 | 1.37lenny2 | stable | source > > linux-kernel-di-arm-2.6 | 1.37lenny2 | testing | source > > linux-kernel-di-arm-2.6 | 1.37lenny2 | unstable | source > > > > Again, the last two lines are incorrect. And I'm not sure where the > > first one comes from. > > The first one was present when etch got released. etch-m68k was created > to make it possible for m68k to also have some kind of release which > never happened AFAIK.
But why is an arm-only package included in a m68k-only suite? > > Would it be possible to clear the database of this (outdated) > > information? > > What's shown there is the actual status AFAICS. It would probably be > good to remove linux-kernel-di-m68k-2.6 and linux-kernel-di-arm-2.6 > from unstable though. I thought arm and m68k had been removed from the archive for unstable and testing? Or were udebs overlooked in general? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
