Steven Chamberlain dixit:
>On 05/09/14 18:39, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> * Remove the confusion: turn debian-ports into a separate *normal*
>>mailing list, announce it and let people subscribe to it [...]
>
>That sounds perfect IMHO. It could be used for general discussion about
>porting, upco
On 05/09/14 18:04, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> For example, src:glibc, has been fully built on sh4, yet:
> yamato:~# apt-cache policy libc6
> libc6:
> Installed: 2.19-9
> Candidate: 2.19-9
> Version table:
> *** 2.19-9 0
> 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
I can only find arch:all pa
Hi,
On 05/09/14 18:39, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> * Remove the confusion: turn debian-ports into a separate *normal*
>mailing list, announce it and let people subscribe to it [...]
That sounds perfect IMHO. It could be used for general discussion about
porting, upcoming new ports, or any ports
Hi folks,
I believe the existing debian-ports setup (as an exploder pointing to
all the different port lists) is not working well at all. It's a
confusing setup to many people, which leads to lots of cross-list
noise that's probably not warranted. Some of the traffic is also
clearly meant to be di
Hi Aurelien!
I just noticed that there seems to be something wrong with
packages.debian.org regarding sh4. Many packages are not
listed there as available even though they are built and
installed.
For example, src:glibc, has been fully built on sh4, yet:
> https://packages.debian.org/sid/libc6
5 matches
Mail list logo
