On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 12:31:49AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > > Also, there is no /ports/superh/ on www.debian.org. That's also
> > > > something
> > > > I'd ask for, proper documentation of the port... I'm willing to add
> > > > things
> > > > if people send me plain text which can be
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 08:09:17AM +0900, YAEGASHI Takeshi wrote:
> > Also, there is no /ports/superh/ on www.debian.org. That's also something
> > I'd ask for, proper documentation of the port... I'm willing to add things
> > if people send me plain text which can be put there. I don't know eno
Hi,
At Sun, 30 Dec 2001 11:49:45 +0100,
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Oliver M . Bolzer wrote:
> > So, how would the members of the debian-suoerh list order
> > sh3, sh4, sh3eb, sh4eb according to importance and number of potential
> > users?
> > Then we can debate how many and which subarchitectures
Hi,
At Sun, 30 Dec 2001 10:17:36 +0100,
Oliver M . Bolzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ mail crossposted to debian-project as this might interest
> other people, too. Please reply to debian-superh ]
Thanks for your attention.
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 07:21:25AM +0900, YAEGASHI Takeshi <[
Oliver M . Bolzer wrote:
> So, how would the members of the debian-suoerh list order
> sh3, sh4, sh3eb, sh4eb according to importance and number of potential users?
> Then we can debate how many and which subarchitectures we compile and
> distribute.
And the sh port lacks proper maintenance at the
Hi!
[ mail crossposted to debian-project as this might interest
other people, too. Please reply to debian-superh ]
On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 07:21:25AM +0900, YAEGASHI Takeshi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote...
> As the recent discussions in SuperH lists, we should have four
> different architectur
6 matches
Mail list logo
