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
>>> 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.