Re: clisp install failure is a powerpc64 only problem?
- To: Philipp Kern <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: David Bremner <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: clisp install failure is a powerpc64 only problem?
- From: Mark Hymers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:29:16 +0000
- Message-id: <20110114132916.GA21206@hymers.org.uk>
- Mail-followup-to: Philipp Kern <email@example.com>, David Bremner <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <20110114130529.GA31705@thrall.0x539.de>
- References: <email@example.com> <20110114130529.GA31705@thrall.0x539.de>
On Fri, 14, Jan, 2011 at 02:05:29PM +0100, Philipp Kern spoke thus..
> am Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 07:55:40AM -0400 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> > Of course, if someone can duplicate the bug running a 32-bit kernel that
> > changes things. I still think we probably need a powerpc64 porterbox if
> > powerpc is going to continue as a release architecture post squeeze.
> I lobbied hard to get ppc64 buildds at all. Now we have three: porpora,
> poulenc and praetorius. As porpora and poulenc are identical Apple XServe G5,
> and given that we still have the slow voltaire as a ppc32 around, it might make
> sense to get one of the two to be a ppc porterbox with 64bit kernel.
> I don't know if porterboxes are possible at that location, however. Thus
> Cc'ing d-admin and the local admin.
Unlikely we can make that a publically accessible porterbox I'm afraid.
I'd have to talk to networks at the University but I'm not sure they'd
be happy with it. I'll ask though.
Mark Hymers <mhy at debian dot org>
"But Yossarian *still* didn't understand either how Milo could buy eggs
in Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa
for five cents."
Catch 22, Joseph Heller