On 02/20/2012 02:43 PM, Luca Falavigna wrote: > Hi Cyril, > > Il 20 febbraio 2012 12:42, Cyril Lacoux <[email protected]> ha scritto: >> Package's page is still reporting that an older version - 5.100.82.38-1 - is >> present in the archive[1], but the files seem not to be there[2], this would >> be interresting for us to know why. > > It's probably an issue of packages.d.o, as archive has only the following: > broadcom-sta-dkms | 5.100.82.112-6 | unstable/non-free | amd64 > broadcom-sta-common | 5.100.82.112-6 | unstable/non-free | all > broadcom-sta-source | 5.100.82.112-6 | unstable/non-free | amd64 > broadcom-sta | 5.100.82.112-6 | unstable/non-free | source > >> Second, how do we have to proceed in order to make the new package available >> for i386 architecture ? >> Does my sponsor need to re-upload the current version for amd64 so that the >> package could be recompiled by builders ? >> Shall I have to increment package version before re-uploading it ? > > It's non-free, so as long as it's not in non-free autobuild list (see > [0]), your sponsor has to manually upload binaries for other > architectures. See [1] for further reference. > > [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/11/msg00012.html > [1] > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#porter-guidelines
Maybe also have a look at: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#non-free-buildd Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
