On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 02:32:55PM -0400, Mike Furr wrote: > On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 18:37, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Outdated binaries need to be replaced or removed first, otherwise we > > would have binaries in testing with no corresponding source. > Okay, I thought perhaps you could just move in the new version... > guess not. > > The bug report about the m68k build failures suggests that it should > > build better with gcc-3.4, which is now in the archive. You might > > consider preparing a package that's configured to use gcc-3.4 as the > > compiler on m68k, and getting someone to do a test build for you, so > > that the updated package has a chance of getting into sarge without > > requiring ftpmaster intervention. > I would prefer not to do this since the build takes almost 2 days on > m68k, which is a lot to ask of a m68k builder considering the package > has no possible reason to be built on that architecture other than to > find bugs in gcc. > Is it your opinion that the m68k binaries won't get removed in time for > sarge? It's my opinion that strategies that let you fix such problems yourself are preferable over strategies that depend on the intervention of centralized groups (i.e., ftpmaster). I don't know whether that removal request will be acted on before the freeze, but I would err on the side of caution and assume that it won't. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature