On 2022-11-24 09:47:51 -0500, Scott Talbert wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2022, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> 
> > Hi Scott
> > 
> > On 2022-11-23 19:38:26 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > > Hi Scott,
> > > 
> > > On 23-11-2022 15:26, Scott Talbert wrote:
> > > > Hi Release Team,
> > > > 
> > > > I'm trying to understand why this package (haskell-copilot-theorem[1])
> > > > isn't migrating to testing.  It looks like it is saying that it is being
> > > > blocked by haskell-what4, but haskell-what4 has already migrated to
> > > > testing on October 17.  Also, if I look at excuses for haskell-what4,
> > > > there aren't any.
> > > > 
> > > > The only thing I can possibly think is that it is referring to migration
> > > > of binNMU's, but I can't see any way to see the status of those.  Is it
> > > > possible?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Scott
> > > > 
> > > > [1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=haskell-copilot-theorem
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > It says:
> > > haskell-copilot-theorem haskell-parameterized-utils/ppc64el (not 
> > > considered)
> > > 
> > > Which means that haskell-copilot-theorem on ppc64el depends on
> > > src:haskell-parameterized-utils.
> > > 
> > > Picking one of the binaries from that source and asking rmadison says:
> > > paul@mulciber ~ $ rmadison libghc-parameterized-utils-dev
> > > libghc-parameterized-utils-dev | 2.1.5.0-2+b1  | testing    | amd64, 
> > > arm64,
> > > armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
> > > libghc-parameterized-utils-dev | 2.1.5.0-2+b2  | unstable   | mips64el,
> > > mipsel, ppc64el
> > > libghc-parameterized-utils-dev | 2.1.5.0-2+b3  | unstable   | armhf, i386,
> > > s390x
> > > libghc-parameterized-utils-dev | 2.1.5.0-2+b4  | unstable   | amd64, 
> > > arm64,
> > > armel
> > > 
> > > So indeed, the binNMU's of that source are out-of-sync between testing and
> > > unstable.
> > > 
> > > Searching in the excuses [2] I see this:
> > > Depends: haskell-parameterized-utils/amd64 <a
> > > href="#haskell-th-abstraction">haskell-th-abstraction</a>
> > > 
> > > So that points at haskell-th-abstraction.... (which seems in a similar
> > > situation but then with haskell-clash-prelude)
> > 
> > And if you go down the rabbit hole far enough, you'll eventually reach
> > #1023149 which needs to be taken care of.
> 
> Yes, that's the same conclusion I came to.  Thanks!

The next blocker is #1023020.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

Reply via email to