On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 12:43:28PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Hi Sven, hi all, > > First of all, sorry for mixing discussions about buildd relocation and > usability buildds with the "ppc64" string in their uname for building > the powerpc port in the future. I have now separated the threads > accordingly. Good luck to Voltaire in his trip. > > Le Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:45:59AM +0200, Sven Luther a écrit : > > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 06:34:31PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > > > > But I have another concern. In my experience, some debian source > > > packages do not build on G5 running the Debian powerpc port because > > > their ./configure scripts get confused by the "ppc64" string in the > > > uname output. Depending on how widespread this problem is, this has two > > > consequences: > > > > My opinion, is that such packages are buggy, and the problem should be > > fixed, probably at the build infrastructure level, with some smart > > substitution, if it has not been fixed already. I have not yet seen any > > such problem, and ubuntu use powerpc64 hardware as their powerpc > > buildds. > > I have just looked at the buildd information of Ubuntu, and it seems > that they use only G3/G4 machines: > > https://launchpad.net/+builds/royal > https://launchpad.net/+builds/adare > https://launchpad.net/+builds/ross > > Or am I just confused and they meant that they build *for* G3/G4 ?
I may have been wrong then, but still packages not building on powerpc64 are buggy, and need to be fixed. Let's make powerpc64 multiarch or biarch support a release goal for lenny, who is interested in helping out for this ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
