Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I do care about it. But I see no particular reason for urgency about
>> the particular bug, and obviously, the m68k team doesn't either.
>
> Obviously?
They ignored it for a long time, and as far as I know, haven't
requested the maintainer to treat it
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm and here I thought you would care about this package, the way you
> constantly asked about its status...
I do care about it. But I see no particular reason for urgency about
the particular bug, and obviously, the m68k team doesn't either.
Thomas
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The point is that these release criteria have practically enforced a black
> and white scheme - either you're with us or you're on your own.
Actually, Anthony Towns described about a half-dozen distinct
possibilities, and outlined the advantages and dis
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Then m68k would be a suitable release candidate for etch+1.
>
> As usual you're avoiding the issue. The answer is not _that_ simple.
Really? What are the great mysterious complexities in it?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PS: 4 days and still no response to guile-1.6 patch...
Maybe you should ask the guile-1.6 maintainer? I'm not responsible
for the package.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTE
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Well, that's what we want as well and if m68k could provide this, what's
>> > the reason
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, that's what we want as well and if m68k could provide this, what's
> the reason this couldn't be released as "Debian"?
So far, m68k *can't* provide it. That's the problem.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you have no fucking clue as to what the current state of things is
> and why the architecture has been thrown out, I suggest you keep your
> petty comments to yourself.
> * Etch isn't screwed because of a desperate attempt to support m68k in
> it,
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, this is irrelevant for this thread as the topic of this thread is "m68k
> not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?" and not
> "Thomas Bushnell would like to see his packages being built on m68k". Maybe
> that's disappointing
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh well... you already know that m68k suffered from serious toolchain
> problems, which are fixed now thanks to Roman, Stephen Marenka and others,
> and that the w-b queueing algorithm is not known to be very intelligent,
> i.e. it doesn't queue in o
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh well... you already know that m68k suffered from serious toolchain
> problems, which are fixed now thanks to Roman, Stephen Marenka and others,
> and that the w-b queueing algorithm is not known to be very intelligent,
> i.e. it doesn't queue in o
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What are the porters wanted to say? "We want to release with Etch?" I think
> that's obvious and the porters are doing their best to keep the port going
> and keeping up as much as possible.
Why is the most recent g-wrap still not compiled for m68k
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:28:55AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>> It's not like I hunted around for problems, I simply looked at the
>> cases closest to the packages I maintain, asking "why don't
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Does this explain why guile-1.6 is still not compiled for m68k?
>
> Maybe you just wanted to know if the bug is solved in the meanwhile, but
> your way to ask is very, uhm, bad, because it includes some sort of attack.
> Your question can be under
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You did not ask Roman to provide examples of "fixes are just stuck in the
> BTS", you picked your own bug and then complains it is not a good example
> ? Is not that non-sense ?
No, what I did was I asked how his claim relates to a particular bug
in a
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> was your initial phrase 'Please
> let the release team know how we can be of assistance to you in setting
> and meeting goals for an m68k release' just a hollow phrase...
I never said anything of the kind.
If the m68k team can make the port happen wit
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Your message was deliberately misleading, designed to suggest that
>> there had been a fix in for a while (even if "not that old yet"), when
>> in fact, the patch was posted *after* my message.
>
> What the hell is your problem? Yes, the patch is _one_ d
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> > I'm not sure what you intent with this question. The patch is not that
>> > old yet, but it's there:
>> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.c
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Fixes for problems are too often simply stuck in the BTS now, because in
>> > many cases maintainer si
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Fixes for problems are too often simply stuck in the BTS now, because in
> many cases maintainer simply don't care about m68k support. I often have
> to bug people to get them to release a fixed package.
Does this explain why guile-1.6 is still not com
Stephen R Marenka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> True, but I've filed a number of such bugs only to find they were gcc
> toolchain problems. Many others were ignored out right, since we're
> not RC. I hadn't intended to file that bug until I had ruled out the
> compiler and maybe could file an in
Stephen R Marenka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not saying quantity isn't a problem or that politics isn't annoying,
> but the m68k port's biggest problem since gcc-4.0 rolled out has been
> the toolchain.
I don't think this is the only thing, however.
Notice that guile-1.6 has not built
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:41:12AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> However, there is no developer-accessible m68k machine.
>
> Uh? Since when is crest.debian.org not DD accessible anymore? And kullervo
> is access
Sorry for the previous message, it contained innacurate information.
The correct info is:
I would like to debug the failure of scm to build on m68k, or receive
patches from someone else who has done so.
The buildfailure is at
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=scm&ver=5d9-5&arch=m68k&stamp
"Matthias Urlichs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> > > The size is always 46, and this seems to happen on m68k only.
> > > Any idea where that comes from?
> >
> > Not a clue, but with a build log I might be able to figure
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> lilypond, building on m68k, logs heaps of lines like the next two:
>
> Attempt to free something of size 46
> Attempt to allocate something of size 46
>
> The size is always 46, and this seems to happen on m68k only.
>
> Any idea where that comes f
26 matches
Mail list logo
