I'd like to clarify the package-arch-specific / s390 not-for-us status of isdnutils and of a few of my packages which build-depend on libcapi20-dev, a binary package built by isdnutils.
* asterisk-chan-capi is in not-for-us for s390. Why? Reading old build logs suggests that the problem was that the build-depends on libcapi20-dev was not satisfiable on s390. It is now. So, unless you have another reason to have it as not-for-us, please remove that! * capi4hylafax is architecture-restricted in p-a-s; the only reason known to me for that would be that it build-depends on an architecture-restricted package, namely libcapi20-dev. But the restriction is more strict than the actual situation in etch/sid; please include _all_ architectures that have or will have libcapi20-dev installed. That is, to the best of my knowledge: alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc Given that the only reason is unavailable build-depends, wouldn't state "dep-wait" be more accurate than a listing in p-a-s? At least then it doesn't need human intervention when the array of architectures the build-dependency is available on grows. * p-a-s lists "chan-capi". This package has been removed from Debian: http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/chan-capi/news/20050322T042955Z.html You probably want to remove that line. * p-a-s lists libcapi20 as being architecture-restricted; in particular s390 is not in the list. There are several issues here: 1) The binary package is now named libcapi20-3, so I presume that this line has no effect. If the reason for existence of that line still exists, it should be changed to libcapi20-3. If not, remove it. On the other hand, it has been quite some time since the package was named libcapi, so even if theoretically justified, it seems that not having that line doesn't bother anyone... as nobody noticed. 2) I would expect libcapi20-dev to have the same restrictions as libcapi20-3, but it is not present in p-a-s. 3) s390 has successfully built libcapi20-3 and libcapi20-dev, and they are in the archive, probably as a result of the renaming not being reflected in p-a-s. So either these packages are broken, but nobody noticed because nobody used them or s390 should be added to the list. I'm inclined to believe that s390 should be added to the list because the "Architecture:" line of the control file in the sources includes s390. More generally, probably p-a-s should reflect the "Architecture:" lines; missing are hppa, ppc64, s390, for all binary packages of isdnutils (except arch: all ones). Note that hppa seems to be in the same situation than s390: the packages are successfully compiled and installed. 4) The comment says: # isdnutils has one arch: any package (isdnvboxclient), so we can't % it .... but that is wrong. isdnvboxclient is: Architecture: alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc ppc64 sparc s390 like the rest of the binary packages (except for the architecture: all ones). So, % it all the way? 5) Any particular reason armeb/armel is not in the list, both for p-a-s and the architecture line in debian/control? -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
