Hi Wouter! You wrote:
> > > I'd heard back nothing about adopting the package. Unless anyone's > > > stated needing the package, I'd be happy with it being removed. Once > > > finals are over, I'll be looking at the new gcc/binutils packaging. > > > > AFAIR, it wasn't removed in Summer because the 68k guys said it was > > needed. > > It is most certainly not needed. Who said it was? Hmm, nobody did actually. Martin Michlmayr asked about this on debian-68k last july. A discussion followed in which [EMAIL PROTECTED] offered to fix/NMU/whatever it. After that the thread died. Then, in september, when I asked about this on debian-qa, someone said that it was needed. However, it isn't: | In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, | Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Martin Michlmayr wrote: | | > Is there any reason to keep gcc-m68k-linux in Debian? It is not well | > maintained (i.e. hasn't made the FHS transition). Is it needed, or | > can it be removed? | | IMO, it's completely useless in this state. It's that old that it's not | even possible to compile a kernel with the thing. | | The last maintainer upload was in 1998; the last non-maintainer upload | was | done to fix a dependency, this year. | | Since the normal gcc package should allow one to compile a | cross-compiler | (Which I tried, but did not succeed to do, probably because I made an | error somewhere), I don't think it's still necessary to keep | gcc-m68k-linux in the archive. | So, I think it can be safely removed. -- Kind regards, +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Bas Zoetekouw | Si l'on sait exactement ce | |--------------------------------| que l'on va faire, a quoi | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | bon le faire? | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Pablo Picasso | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
