On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > Yes, 'm68k' and 'future' in one sentence. Amazing, isn't it? Surely we > > > must be joking? > > > > Hey, I haven't seen any activity wrt m68k archive (re)qualificiation. > > You haven't been looking good enough, then. > > > Given m68k's dropped back below the 95% cutoff (and has spent about > > 1/3rd of the last 90 days beneath it) and has a number of red squares > > still on the release arch qualification page it seems certain at this > > point that you won't get a "release arch" exception any time soon. > > That's being worked on. > > The backlog started because there were not enough build daemons to keep > up with the extra work introduced by the move to GCC4. This has been > remedied in the mean time, and we're back to 0 needs-build on a regular > basis. Also, the extra CPU power that this new port will bring us is
For clarity: s/this new port/the support for the ColdFire/ [...] -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
