On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:22:23 -0300 Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote: [...] > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 10:09:55PM +0200, Francesco Poli (t1000) wrote: [...] > > It seems to me that the i386 binary package of rakarrack has not yet > > been built [...] > Actually it's not an unsatisfied dependency. It's a problem with alsa-utils > 1.0.20-2. I've seen it's already reported, so I've reforced the need of fixing > it soon. Now I noted 1.0.20-3 was pushed to Debian and it's supposed to solve > this issue in rakarrack: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=539983 > > Let's wait a little. According to the buildd log rakarrack was built against > the broken alsa-utils 1.0.20-2.
Will the buildd try again automatically? > > > Despite this lack of syncronization among architectures, the > > package *did* migrate to testing [...] > > Maybe I am misinterpreting something. > > > > Could you please help me understand where's the problem (maybe a > > bug in britney?), so that we can properly reassign this bug report? > > Can this problem be solved for rakarrack? > > No, it's not a bug in britney. Please look: > > http://www.debian.org/devel/testing > > As you can see, a package doesn't need to be compiled in all archs to go to > testing. IIUC, you are referring to the "on all architectures it has previously been compiled for in unstable" part. I'm afraid I forgot that part... :p OK, so it's normal that a NEW package intended to be built on all (supported) architectures, FTBFS on one of them and migrates to testing that notwithstanding. So be it... Thanks for the explanation. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpa18Sf5ty6M.pgp
Description: PGP signature
