On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 12:43:19PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
>...
> What is the opinion of the two porters that we currently have listed
> for armel
>...
I am not in favour of removing armel in trixie.
> Cheers
cu
Adrian
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 08:53:44PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On 2024-08-01 07:55:15 +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> > > Should Debian drop armel from the upcoming Debian release?
> >
> > Was there a conclusion to the discussion on d-arm@l.d.o? What is the
> > opinion of the two por
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 05:18:15PM +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
>...
> There was also a suggestion to mark non-for-us or stop building large
> packages that may not be that useful in the armel architecture, such
> LibreOffice, possibly some desktops, etc.. since armel is mostly meant
> for embedded an
Plus 1 from me!
Rick
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024, at 1:05 AM, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> Hello Hector,
> thanks for bringing this up!
>
> On 2024-08-21 05:18, Hector Oron wrote:
>> There was a compelling reason to do at least one more armel release to
>> have at least one official release with time64 suppor
On 2024-08-22 10:05, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> Hello Hector,
> thanks for bringing this up!
¡Gracias, Héctor!
> On 2024-08-21 05:18, Hector Oron wrote:
>> There was a compelling reason to do at least one more armel release to
>> have at least one official release with time64 support.
>
> FWIW I thi
Hello Hector,
thanks for bringing this up!
On 2024-08-21 05:18, Hector Oron wrote:
> There was a compelling reason to do at least one more armel release to
> have at least one official release with time64 support.
FWIW I think this makes a lot of sense: have one stable release with
time64 support
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:18 AM Hector Oron wrote:
>
> [...]
> There was also a suggestion to mark non-for-us or stop building large
> packages that may not be that useful in the armel architecture, such
> LibreOffice, possibly some desktops, etc.. since armel is mostly meant
> for embedded and
Hello Sebastian,
(Apologies for delay, I starting drafting the email, but I had to
leave and never got back to it until now)
> Was there a conclusion to the discussion on d-arm@l.d.o?
There was a compelling reason to do at least one more armel release to
have at least one official release with t
Hi,
On 15-08-2024 20:35, Martin wrote:
What would be the best way, esp. for people outside of Debian, to always
know about such problems? And not only read about it, when it's already
solved?
Ideally bug affecting specific architectures should have the right
usertags. I believe in this case t
On 2024-08-13 20:53, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> fakeroot, a notable key part of the infrastructure required to build
> packages, FTBFS on armel and armhf since March, due to t64 changes
> on these architectures.
>
> I think this is indicative of the developer interest in armel and
> armhf and the
Hi,
> On 2024-08-01 07:55:15 +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> > Should Debian drop armel from the upcoming Debian release?
>
> Was there a conclusion to the discussion on d-arm@l.d.o? What is the
> opinion of the two porters that we currently have listed for armel
> (added to CC)?
fakeroot, a notable
Hi Héctor
On 2024-08-01 07:55:15 +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> [ {debian-kernel,debian-boot,debian-release}@d.o are in Bcc so they
> can track follow up emails at debian-arm ML if interested. ]
>
> Dear fellow developers,
>
> Debian Installer no longer produces daily builds for this platform:
> -
12 matches
Mail list logo