Bug#879071: fixed in 0ad 0.0.22-2

[Ludovic Rousseau]

2017-11-18 17:28 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill <jcowgill at debian.org>:

> Hi,
>
> On 18/11/17 16:21, Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > 2017-11-18 6:21 GMT+01:00 Petter Reinholdtsen <pere at hungry.com>:
> >
> >> [Ludovic Rousseau]
> >>>  0ad (0.0.22-2) unstable; urgency=medium
> >>>  .
> >>>    * Fix "0ad FTBFS with on armhf with gcc 7: error: call of overloaded
> >>>      'abs(unsigned int)' is ambiguous" by removing support of armhf
> >>>      (Closes: #879071)
> >>
> >> Note, this "fix" did not work, as there are armhf binaries in the
> archive
> >> and the new version is not allowed to propagate into testing until the
> >> armhf binaries are updated to the latest version or removed.  Did you
> >> file a request for removal?
> >>
> >
> > Adrian Bunk filed bug #880058 "RM: 0ad [armhf] -- NBS; no longer built on
> > armhf"
> >
> > I am not sure it will be enough since the versions for arm64,
> > kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 must also be removed.
> > Should I create 3 new bugs for the other 3 architectures?
>
> You can just retitle the original bug, with a message explaining the
> situation (assuming it isn't closed before then).
>
> Currently we have:
>  0ad | 0.0.21-2  | stretch | source, amd64, armhf, i386
>  0ad | 0.0.21-2  | sid     | source, armhf, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386
>  0ad | 0.0.22-3  | sid     | source, amd64, i386
>
> So I think only armhf and kfreebsd-* need removing (not arm64). kfreebsd
> doesn't affect testing migration in any case.
>

So bug #880058, as it is, will remove the armhf version and 0ad should then
be able to migrate to testing.
I should _not_ file new bugs. Exact?

Thanks

-- 
 Dr. Ludovic Rousseau
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/attachments/20171118/1ab5b3e1/attachment.html>