> > I doubt that - parts will be uninstallable at pretty much all times.
> > That's why it would be nice to have testing (or maybe testing-m68k, based
> > on etch-m68k).
>
> testing should be based on sid.
Color me stupid, but now I don't understand the 'there is no testing for
m68k because there is no etch' business. We would need to have some
baseline for sid packages to be checked against for installability, and
that would (initially) have been etch-m68k?
> > Re: volunteers: I have volunteered to help Wouter with managing testing
> > for m68k even before the etch release. Repeatedly. Only, anything in the
> > way of documentation or description of the testing ftpmaster scripts, or
> > any other tools needed to control progression of unstable packages into
> > testing-m68k, has NOT been forthcoming. Ever.
>
> When I asked about m68k and testing on release, they said they were fine
> with the idea of m68k testing. However, until we solve our outstanding
> toolchain problems (gcc-4.1, gcc-4.2, and glibc tls), it pretty much isn't
> going to happen.
What's with gcc-4.1? TLS I see, 4.2 OK but how does that interfere with
_testing_? It's a red herring, that's how.
> > Back to wearing my 'm68k kernel hacker' hat ...
>
> We need more of that too (still don't have 2.6.20 on m68k :).
Uh, messy. I'll try t make time for that. Having a non-crashing aranym for
powerpc and amd64 would help.
> Having parted know about atari partitions would also be nice -- making
> it much easier to install on atari. If anyone is interested, there are
> some preliminary patches floating around I can point you to.
Personally, I would not touch parted with a ten foot pole. Bloatware,
buggy. But I can look over the patches.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
