Re: How should we deal with 'pointless-on-this-arch' packages?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 10/15/06 00:03, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Roberto C. Sanchez" <email@example.com> writes:
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I think it should be in the porters control what packages to
> build for an arch with some guidelines what sort of packages can
> be removed without loosing release status. For example removing
> KDE would not be OK. Removal should be reserved for extreme cases
> though. Things that just need long to build should be put into
> weak_no_auto and limited to the stronger buildds of an arch.
Why *shouldn't* KDE, GNOME, Firefox/Iceweasel, Tbird, and anything
that requires Mesa/OpenGL, and all of Charles Plessy's scientific
packages be marked do_not_build on 68k/Coldfire & ARM?
If an Amiga (using the unaccelerated fb driver?) is running as an X
Terminal for a powerful, modern box, the Amiga would need to process
the OpenGL commands, no?
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----