On 04/11/16 09:39, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Emilio, > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:21:56AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> >>> Hmmm, I'm afraid I do not understand what you mean. What exactly is the >>> big hammer and how can I prevent asking you to use it? >> >> The big hammer is a force-hint type hint, which basically tells britney >> 'ignore >> everything with this package and migrate it to testing, no matter what'. > > OK, that's really nasty. > >> There are two ways to improve this: >> >> - try not to get these packages auto-removed from testing > > Neither sspace nor metaphlan2-data were in testing at all. These are new > packages that never have made it into testing at all. So it seems that my > assumption that once the package is in testing (and I fully agree that its > our task to keep them there) no additional force-hint will be required.
sspace was in testing, then got removed, see https://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sspace.html And yes, I think once the package is in testing, no force-hints are needed. >> - make bowtie/bowtie2 32-bit friendly >> >> I imagine the latter is a difficult task or it would have happened already. >> But >> it would be the right solution to this problem, and a good outcome for bowtie >> and its rdeps as well imho. > > I fully agree and you are right we just did so. > > When thinking about more solution: Is it really sensible these days to > pin the testing migration on the existence of packages in i386? I might > be very naive about the mechanism behind but I think at least some > "i386||amd64" logic would be appropriate. Not really. That's there to catch regressions and bugs, and should stay for the foreseeable future (as long as i386 stays mainstream). I won't remove that for a dozen of packages that are not installable on i386. Cheers, Emilio
