On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 06:15:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 02:46:39AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > But when X fails to install into testing it really does hurt the > > release; many packages in Debian depend on X. When X, Perl (and thus so we make an exemption for X? What comes next, boot-floppies?
> For example glibc and gcc had some problems getting ported to arm for a > fair while; X had problems (and still does) working on m68k (in particular > xserver-xfree86); alsa needs some bugs fixed; libqt2.2 wasn't building > on alpha without a newer version of gcc. Just a few comment on the m68k issues (quite OT for -vote?): There was not much support for m68k in the X 4.0.x packages, it took me well over a month to get X _build_ on m68k. If there were somebody who knew something about X (I know nothing about it), this would have been fixed in a day. The xserver is still not running, I think its not too hard to fix, but I have no time for that. Again, somebody with a clue might get this fixed in another day (not counting compilation time...). The buildd did not build packages for a long time, since a) the ftp mirror ran out of space and b) binutils have a serious bug on m68k makeing many builds fail. Hopefully the binutils are working now (thanks to a new potential clueful m68k maintainer) and we might catch up with the rest again. Now if we got a list of important packages which need to be built, Michael asked once? twice? for that and got nothing... X is current on m68k (unless there was another new version which was again not announced on debian-x), glibc is current, apt fails to build but probably the bug is found, perl was built by the maintainer. What else is _important_ to get built immediately? I just wish everybody would try to give m68k a hand before they start complaining. And now everybody join hands and go to vote. Christian
