On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 03:19:54PM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote: > Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If -policy wants to run a flame war > > Hey, who ever wants a flame war?
:-) Well, I don't usually follow -policy (the list not the document) unless something comes up that I need to chime in on. You all seem to be doing a pretty sane job of it, leaving me time to write and package code. Maybe it's the exception to other lists with 1000 dd's on them... > Although I will add on this point Ron that it is also part of your > duty here, IMHO, to submit the build portability and other useful > patches upstream. I think I can assert that w/o controversy. I'm on the upstream -users list for it, and though I'm no compiler guru myself I've sent them a couple of patches of my own and forwarded a number of others in the past. In this case I originally referred the OP to communicate with them directly if that was required, which seems the expedient thing to do if I've got nothing in particular to offer that will help, but his finding was that a few small changes to the diff.gz will suffice. I'm rather surprised given there appears to be no precedent for building it on other than i386, but not unhappily so. They've added a new target without sacrificing any of gcc's other portability -- now if they'd just merge it all with mainstream gcc ... But even the OP agreed that not every piece of software is necessarily portable in which case I also agree it's up to someone who wants it on the port to do the porting -- the Debian maintainer is not obliged to port i386 assembly to some other platform just because 'duty calls for equality' any more than upstream is, but I don't think anyone disagreed with that. Just that we shouldn't get in the way of that being possible if someone has an interest in making it so. I would presume wrt to my misunderstanding about testing, that its also possible if a port becomes 'permanently' broken for some package, with no porter prepared to help fix it, to remove that port from the requirement for subsequent versions to enter testing on the remaining ports. In that event should I make a request to ftp-admin, remove it from the arch list, or something else? Ron
