Le Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:51:19AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit : > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 08:30:23AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > Do you mean that they need pysam 0.8 ? Because otherwise I do not see how > > pysam is blocking them: currently version 0.7.7-1 is in both Testing and > > Sid. > > Its probably rather the fact that not all architectures have. For > instance: > > https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=fitgcp > > I could simply restrict the package to those architectures that have > python-pysam which might solve the problem of the migration of fitgcp > as well and might give us enough time to deal with pysam.
Hi Andreas, I looked at fitgcp: it is marked architecture-dependent (Architecture: all) in debian/control, but it only contains a python script. Then since it can be built everywhere, while it happens that python-pysam can not, it can not migrate… I then checked on snapshot.debian.org if the availability of python-pysam on architectures regressed in the past. Since it did not, I think that it is reasonable to assume that it will not suddenly become available on every architecture. Therefore, as it is, fitgcp will never migrate to Testing. First I thought that making it architecture-independent would solve the problem, but on a second thought I think that it will not. We therefore should make it available on the same architectures as python-pysam. Maybe the simplest solution would be to build-depend on it ? What do you think about that ? Cheers, Charles -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, https://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
