Robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Goswin, > > Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 09:21:50AM 05/09/04: >> Why not fix it yourself? Since you seem to use clisp I guess you are >> familiar with it? > > I actually did try to fix the bug in clisp but I didn't succeed at it > because I didn't know enough about MIPS assembly in order to follow > through on it. My requests on the debian-mips mailing lists all went > unanswered[1].
Have you tried talking to the gcc maintainer team to find some mips guys directly? Or to the linux-mips mailinglist? Maybe some non Debian person can help. >> Do you think it wise to exclude packages from an arch just because it >> has some bug? If the maintainer can't be bothered to fix a bug the >> package should not enter testing. Excluding an arch just works around >> semi orphaned packages. > > Just in case you didn't get it, the problem is not even in *my* package. It wasn't adressed against your package. Sorry. > The clisp package at some point built the FFI module for mips, which let > my mcvs package be built and propagated into testing. Then the clisp > maintainer turned off building the FFI module for certain architectures > (including mips), making it impossible for mcvs to build successfully for > those architectures from that point on. I agree with you that the *clisp* > package w/o FFI on some architectures shouldn't have made it into testing > but it did, and that's how things stand now. Have you considered dropping just the clisp needing parts for not fully supported archs? On i386 I don't see a Depends: clisp in mcvs so it seems to be usefull without it at first glance. Maybe that would solve the problem. Since you have a problem with the language support for the specific arch it is very hard to find someone qualified to fix this. > - robin > > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2004/05/msg00141.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2004/06/msg00035.html MsG Goswin
