Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (04/04/2007): > [quote postponed to the end of the message] > > No one has responded to the important point here, which is that *we > should not ship broken binaries on 64-bit systems*; the -5etch1 > package is certainly no better than -6 in this respect, AFAICS both > versions still have an undeclared grave bug because they both ship > binaries on ia64/alpha/amd64 that are known not to be usable.
I wouldn't say it is unusable, see the discussion we had [1]. Please also note that this problem, according to upstream, has affected every 64-bit architecture since it is opensource. As far as I know (please note I'm quite new to the team), nobody ever reported that blender was unusable on these archs, although it has been in debian since 2.23-0.1 in oldstable. I understand that the public would be rather amd64-powered than working on ia64 and alpha, and that there were no official amd64 release, but well, nobody complained. 1. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-blender-maintainers/2007-March/000195.html > The rest is not all that important, in either direction; I think > you've misused debian/NEWS here, and I don't consider documenting a > package's uselessness on an architecture to be an appropriate "fix", Again, I do think it is not useless. It might have problem with crossplatform documents, which is somehow different, IMVHO. And for the record, upstream has been "hiding" this problem until 2.43, not documenting it anywhere. So I'd say that although it is no news, it is quite fair to document it to the users, and I don't really see how I should have done in a different manner. > Ok, note that I wrote there that: > > If the package is not "a releasable version on [64-bit] systems", > then the binaries should be removed from the release, not just > documented. According to Florian, the wording could have been misleading. In the light (I hope so...) of my above explanations, do you feel that 64-bit binaries should be removed? I'd say that it's up to you, I tried to give as much explanations as I could... Also, since it looks like you discuss the seriousness of #417889 with Sam, feel free to hint blender/2.42a-7 if needed (the arm build is missing, though). Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois
pgpBVKV3bUfan.pgp
Description: PGP signature
