On 10/10/16 14:01, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 10/09/2016 11:02 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 10/09/2016 10:25 PM, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>>> Now the same is going to happen with "powerpc" arch: libv8 is actually not
>>> compatible with all processors supported by debian (ppc64xx are ok, though).
>>>
>>> Sebastiaan, i feel bad asking for your help again, but since you already
>>> filled all the RM bugs once, i suppose you're in the best position to do it 
>>> again
>>> for powerpc.
>>
>> Sure, the list of immediately affected packages is limited.
> 
> There has been some progress getting the RM bugs processed. Several of
> for armel are still outstanding, which may be due to the dependency
> problems reported by dak for reverse dependencies.
> 
> I thought that arch:all reverse dependencies didn't need to be removed
> too, but I may be mistaken in that although dak has the option
> --no-arch-all-rdeps for apparently that reason.
> 
> I'll follow up on the outstanding bugreports to mention that only
> arch:all rdeps are reported by dak in the dependency problems.

Indeed, arch:all packages don't need to be removed. If dak complains about them,
point it out they are arch:all and it's OK to break them.

Cheers, and thanks for looking at this.

Emilio

-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Reply via email to