On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:42:53AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a pretty bad idea to NFU > >> software > >> that can be compiled on an architecture even if it doesn't seem that > >> useful. > >> I have the X11 libraries on my NSLU2, which lacks any graphical output, but > >> I use it as an X11 server. > > > >The argument for not building various packages on s390 is that s390 has *no > >hardware*, so anything that depends on local hardware to be useful has no > >purpose on s390. > > > >That doesn't apply for hpodder, which is not a hardware interface; but > >that's a plausible explanation for why the package was put in NFU, if the > >buildd maintainer thought it was hardware-dependent. > > It would be nice if buildd admins told people they were doing it, of > course, so that maintainers don't have to guess why their packages > mysteriously aren't being built...
While I agree with the general sentiment, there is really nothing "mysterious" about checking buildd.debian.org (and calling it that is just finding excuses for maintainers that don't spend the time to check the status of their packages). Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
