[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#532810: marked as done ([www.debian.org] /ports/m68k/ says that m68k is supported)

Your message dated Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:26:59 +0100
with message-id <20110114132659.GA7672@kasbah>
and subject line Re: update needed on /ports/m68k webpage
has caused the Debian Bug report #532810,
regarding [www.debian.org] /ports/m68k/ says that m68k is supported
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
532810: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532810
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal

http://www.debian.org/ports/m68k/ contains "Debian currently runs on the 68020, 68030, 68040 and 68060 processors.". The page which usually brings there (http://www.debian.org/ports/) does mention that "The port failed to make the release criteria for Debian 4.0 and has therefore not been included in Etch and later releases." but there is no hint of that on the 68k page.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi, sorry for the late response.
I've commited the new page (my patch sent on 3 Jan with Thorsten's remarks)
right now: it will be online in few hours. 

I've dropped the 'current issues' part and not mentioned the
not-yet-created wiki.d.o/M68k/Status page: we could add this info when the
page will be created.

I think that the page now reflects the actual status of the port, so the bug
can be closed. Thank you Thorsten for your help and Filipus to have reported
it.

Cheers,
Francesca

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: