Andreas Schwab dixit: >Finn Thain <fth...@telegraphics.com.au> writes: > >>Sorry, what? You seek to veto an upstream Python bug fix because it will >>lead to correct binaries that a certain emulator can't handle? That
Yes, because of the value ARAnyM has for Linux/m68k development and especially testing – for example, considering that there are no porterboxen, we can, currently, just tell people needing one to install a VM themselves, and even provide images from which to start. >>Furthermore, Andreas' bug fix was to be merged for python 3.5. Debian is >>not obliged to use that version with that patch up until Aranym gets Debian is consistent across architectures. (Well, mostly.) This patch changes a known-good but less optimal behaviour (using the old dtoa routines) by behaviour that matches the other architectures even better but only iff the FPU (FPU emulation) supports changing precision. Which it didn’t last time I looked. >>fixed. > >Aranym *is* fixed. What *precise* version of ARAnyM is the first to have been released with a fix for this issue? I never got any response to my message to upstream in which I asked for a release: <pine.bsm.4.64l.1403211905340.7...@herc.mirbsd.org> (No response *at all*, mind you. Not even an ACK or “no”.) Once we do have a fixed version, we can communicate that around. (Note that “have” includes having e.g. backports to stable and several old *buntu versions at least.) bye, //mirabilos -- <igli> exceptions: a truly awful implementation of quite a nice idea. <igli> just about the worst way you could do something like that, afaic. <igli> it's like anti-design. <mirabilos> that too… may I quote you on that? <igli> sure, tho i doubt anyone will listen ;) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-68k-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1404040755120.1...@herc.mirbsd.org
