On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 03:00:57PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> FL> clisp | 1:2.27-0.5 | unstable | source, alpha, i386, powerpc, s390
>
> FL> That program has MANY portability problems which prevent it to enter
> FL> testing. It fails building on sparc,arm,m68k,hppa,ia64.
>
> I see. I didn't realise that.
>
> FL> My current proposal is reducing the number of supported archs for clisp
> FL> and so downgrade all serious bugs.
>
> It's up to you, of course, but I'm not quite sure that's a good idea.
> I'd much rather have an older version that is available everywhere.
>
Mmm, unfortunately old versions had no better fortune:
clisp | 1999-07-22-4 | testing | m68k
clisp | 1999-07-22-4 | unstable | m68k
clisp | 1999-07-22-5 | stable | source, alpha, i386, powerpc
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
clisp | 1999-07-22-5 | testing | powerpc
clisp | 2000-03-06-2 | testing | source, alpha, i386
clisp | 1:2.27-0.5 | unstable | source, alpha, i386, powerpc, s390
So the latest one is currently the best fit to debian requirements.
> FL> Sad to say, we cannot work instead of the upstream in solving all
> FL> those issues, sorry.
>
> Well, portability problems are difficult to take care of, and you, as
> a Debian developer, may very well be in a better situation than Bruno
> Haible to get in touch with vict^H^H^H^Hbeta testers.
That's true, but current package is orphaned, and freezing is going up
so we could have no time/no way to work differently. Unsupported archs can
stay in unstable 'til solutions can be found, and released after woody.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
