Hi,
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> My question is now:
> What is the *exact* plan for m68k for Etch and beyond?
IMO as long as there are few people who have the power to veto m68k out of
existence, I don't see much further hope for m68k within Debian.
The absolutely worst mist
Hi,
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > How will the m68k cope with the glibc problem for Lenny in the future?
> > > How is the Coldfire port going on?
> > I think Aranym is a better prospect than ColdFire. Without revisiting the
> > ISA differences etc, Aranym wins on availabil
Hi,
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> At this point, though, I'm still convinced that it's possible to create
> a port which will work on both coldfire and "classic" m68k; and with a
> glibc that has TLS support (which we still need as well), it doesn't
> even have to slow down things
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>
> > My question is now:
> > What is the *exact* plan for m68k for Etch and beyond?
>
> IMO as long as there are few people who have the power to veto m68k out
> of existence, I don't see much
4 matches
Mail list logo
