On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 18:19 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > On Wed, 19 May 2010 20:31:17 +0100 > > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 21:08 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 14:55:28 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > > > > > There are no open bugs against blacs-mpi, scalapack, or mumps. > > > > > > > > Any ideas on why they're still not transitioning? Is there an old > > > > binary package blocking migration? > > > > > > > Looks that way. > > > > > > mumps (- to 4.9.2.dfsg-4) > > > Maintainer: Adam C. Powell, IV > > > 37 days old (needed 10 days) > > > out of date on armel: libmumps-4.9.2, libmumps-dev, > > > libmumps-seq-4.9.2, libmumps-seq-dev, mumps-test (from 4.9.2.dfsg-2) > > > out of date on hppa: libmumps-4.9.2, libmumps-dev, > > > libmumps-seq-4.9.2, libmumps-seq-dev, mumps-test (from 4.9.2.dfsg-2) > > > out of date on mips: libmumps-4.9.2, libmumps-dev, > > > libmumps-seq-4.9.2, libmumps-seq-dev, mumps-test (from 4.9.2.dfsg-2) > > > out of date on sparc: libmumps-4.9.2, libmumps-dev, > > > libmumps-seq-4.9.2, libmumps-seq-dev, mumps-test (from 4.9.2.dfsg-2) > > > Not considered > > > > These all appear to be waiting for scotch, which FTBFS (#581381, which > > Adam filed). > > I see, so scotch and mumps have to transition along with blacs-mpi and > scalapack? Hadn't thought that was the case since mumps has never been > in testing.
To clarify, by "these all" I meant the missing mumps builds. As neither blacs-mpi nor scalapack depends on mumps, I've added a hint for those two packages; let's see what happens in tomorrow morning's britney. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1274308757.22268.1457.ca...@kaa.jungle.aubergine.my-net-space.net
