On Mon, 20 May 2024 00:30:13 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> For example, *I* don't care at all about 32 bits arch, and would prefer if
> these were to be sent to ports.debian.org. I really mean *all* 32 bits arch,
> including armhf for example.
I agree with you.
No one really needs armel(armv5
> What will this solve?
> I don't think this is "needed"? Unless you think all i386 packages will be
removed from Debian, which is not the plan?
Case 1: Debian removed i386 DVDs/BDs, and someone jigdo backed the full amd64
DVDs/BDs set will be surprised that it do not contain wine32.
Case 2: W
On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 07:26:28AM +, defrag mentation wrote:
> What will this solve?
> I don't think this is "needed"? Unless you think all i386 packages will be
removed from Debian, which is not the plan?
Case 1: Debian removed i386 DVDs/BDs, and someone jigdo backed
I think some of the i386 support policies needs to be reconsidered.
Here are some suggestions:
1. ​Move Wine-32 to amd64, and Wine-32 may be compiled to 64-bit time_t.
Wine-32 is now in currently dropped i386 DVDs/BDs, not in amd64 DVDs/BDs as it
is multiarch-only now, so at least I think movin
4 matches
Mail list logo
