Re: i386 is a port, too (was: Re: choices for autobuilder, ...
On May 29, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> thanks for your kind reply. I will definitely go for wanna build now.
> On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 08:51:48PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > * can't deal with, say, a maintainer uploading
> > architecture-dependant packages for an architecture which isn't i386
> > BTW, this last case may happen to me soon, as I move all of my work
> > over to my new Ultra5.
> !!! This gets more and more important. "Ports" are no longer ports anymore,
> but primary development platforms for many people. It's important to raise
> awareness of this.
> It seems more people are needed to build i386 ports of packages.
I believe Roman Hodek has addressed the "i386 as a port" issue in the
latest buildd in CVS. He's bypassed quinn-diff and is now using the
Sources files somehow.
| Chris Lawrence | The Linux/m68k FAQ |
| <firstname.lastname@example.org> | http://www.linux-m68k.org/faq/faq.html |
| | |
| Amiga A4000 604e/233Mhz | Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5: |
| with Linux/APUS 2.2.3 | <*> http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ <*> |