On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:24:18PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I don't know what everyone else thinks about it here, but it would
> appear to me that making it in time for Etch is not going to happen
> anymore now.
> * Too many compiler bugs
> * As a result, too many uncompiled packages since *ages*. We haven't
> been over the 95% mark of the buildd.debian.org "graph" (as opposed to
> "graph2") since almost a year, if I'm not mistaken, which is just
> terribly bad.
> * Even if we *would* be able to fix our toolchain in time (I would find
> that highly unlikely, but still), then it would take us at least some
> weeks, if not months, to compile away our backlog. There are some
> large packages in failed and dep-wait currently.
> I'm a bit pessimistic about the future of our port currently. What are
> everyone else's thoughts on this?
Same for me. I think it's very unlikely that m68k will be released with
Etch. Somehow I got the feeling that being ignored for testing doesn't help
at all in this situation, but makes it even worse. YMMV.
> Should we just accept that we're not going to make it, or am I being too
> quick to forget about it here?
I think we should start with sorting packages out that have a long term
history of FTBFS. It seems unlikely to me that these packages can be fixed
in time for the release. Adding to N-F-U or P-A-S would be best.
The main goal should be to give a stable release to all those m68k users out
there, not to keep as much packages buildable on m68k as possible.
--
Ciao... // Fon: 0381-2744150
Ingo \X/ SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij/public_key.asc
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
