On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 05:09:00PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > > > My question is now: > > What is the *exact* plan for m68k for Etch and beyond? > > IMO as long as there are few people who have the power to veto m68k out of > existence, I don't see much further hope for m68k within Debian. > The absolutely worst mistake was to generally downgrade _all_ m68k > specific bugs - m68k can't get a realease arch until the bugs are fixed > and bugs don't get fixed if they are not serious and testing becomes > useless for m68k.
Yes, I agree. Which is why I've proposed a BoF for debconf about the failure of m68k to make etch. This certainly is one of the reasons -- another is the fact that our compiler was totally bollocks when 4.0 and 4.1 were initially released, which generated a rather huge backlog for us which we never really recovered from (or at least, it took us a long time to do so). If anyone has any other things they can point to as things that made matters worse for us, please send them my way. > The really bad thing is that whose in power are not even > open to discuss this [0]. :-( In my recent experience, they are (see other mail). > [0] my suggestions in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2006/10/msg00430.html were > unanswered. :-( Yeah, that's a shame. Perhaps we'll have to bring that up again "soon". -- <Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
