Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would tend to discourage maintainers of non-free packages from seeking > out additional porter builds at the last minute before release. If the
Oops, sorry. Here's hoping the following release will happen soon enough that I still remember that. ;-) > packages don't attract enough interest from users of those ports to be > maintained on an ongoing basis, it may be better to have outdated > binaries removed rather than shipping packages that aren't really going > to be supported. OK, thanks for the advice; I'll go file a bug on ftp.d.o then. > At the very least, soliciting builds for the package on archs where it's > never been built -- and never been missed -- seems like it will just > make it harder for you to maintain the package. I know most maintainers > I hear talking about mipsel wish they had the *option* of not supporting > the architecture. ;) Heh, yeah, a new architecture to worry about would definitely be a mixed blessing, though in this case I don't anticipate any portability issues, just logistical ones. At any rate, I did mean to note that a mipsel build would be entirely optional as far as I'm concerned, but accidentally left that point out of the message I ended up sending. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info.
