Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 05/06/16 13:00, Holger Levsen wrote: On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: ppc64: This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We have over 11.000 packages installed [...] sparc64: We are close to 11.000 installed

Re: gnutls28 transition

Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: Hello all, gmp has been recently re-licensed and all architectures and ports have the updated gmp in jessie/sid. Well, all but powerpcspe & x32 both of which recently have negative slope on their build status graphs. Thus GPLv2 and LGPLv3 compatible software packages c

Re: A new metric for source package importance in ports

Johannes Schauer wrote: Hi, the following is a report of a successful implementation of what I have been talking about with Niels Thykier during debconf13. The question was how important it is for a source package to be compilable or exist in the first place given an incomplete port which is in

Re: Qt5 switching qreal from float to double on arm*

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: Any feedback will be kindly appreciated. I've always thought there is something fundamentally wrong. What is qreal supposed to be used for? If it's supposed to be used for things where float would be adequate then shouldn't it be float on all plat

Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)

Johannes Schauer wrote: Until these two issues are fixed we will not be able to get an algorithmic answer to the question of what constitutes the minimum required set of packages. There is also the complication of what I will call "non-key self building compilers". fpc is an example These a

Re: changing the java default to java7, and dropping java support for some architectures

:-) I'm one who asked there some time back why java7 is no longer in the archives (unstable/experimental), while the last binaries I had installed still work OK on my mini-pc... I'm just curious, sorry for asking to the lists... I want to understand if the mini-pc is still a low performance de

FW: Bug#425011: gcc-4.1: FTBFS on m68k and arm, multiple definitions of ffi_prep_closure

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=425011 it seems this bug now has a patch for arm and it looks pretty simple, can it be easilly applied to m68k too and if so does it work? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROT