Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > James Troup wrote: > > > Who said [binary-only NMU's for i386] were bad? > > You did.
No, I said binary-only NMUs as a whole were not ideal; I didn't say anything about binary-only NMU's for i386. Please try to stick to the facts. > > They are very rarely necessary however, since > > 99.5% of the time (the only exception I know of is Hartmut's packages) > > i386 packages are already compiled for i386 and don't need to be > > compiled by someone other than the maintainer. That's when > > binary-only-NMUs occur on non-i386. > > Plenty of people rebuild i386 stuff from scratch for various reasons. It's not even vaguely comparable to ports, because of the scale of the recompilation (so Lars and Johnie do the occasional auto-building, big deal.. it hardly compares to the constant building done by the 6 ports) and because if compiling from the source doesn't work on i386 there is always the binary to fall back on, which isn't the case for non-i386. > [ snip remainder of flamage ] i.e. "I can't actually respond to this, so I'll dismiss it as flames." Good effort. -- James
