Unidentified subject!
Subject: Re: [edd@debian.org: Re: Bug#167780: 0.3.4 is in testing]
Organization: Debian GNU/Linux site
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20050416143812.GA28925@wolffelaar.nl>
X-Newsgroups: local.debian-68k
>
> | > If in fact I, as maintainer, have a choice in the matter , then I would like
> | > to request the same for the following packages:
> | >
> | > octave2.1, quantlib, r-base
> | >
> | > for the
> | >
> | > arm, m68k
> | >
> | > architectures. I have spent *way* too much fscking special requests for
> | > these smaller + older architecture which are, quite simply, mismatched for
> | > these numerically-focussed applications and environments.
> |
> | Please convince a porter for those architectures to add the right lines
>
>
> How would I do that? Whenever I discuss this with people from the porting
> teams, their attitude usually is "why -- we may as well build it". Which is
> wrong, IMHO, as these arches _do_ hold up releases of these packages more
> often than I like.
>
> I still need help in this matter.
>
> Regards, Dirk
>
> | to Packages-arch-specific. If I'd remove those now, they'll get built
> | and re-uploaded immediately again, so that has no use.
> |
> | Update this bug if the changes to P-a-s are done.
> |
> | --Jeroen
octave2.1, quantlib, r-base added to P-a-s for m68k. Request
of maintainer (for whatever reason) is always good enough to
have a package removed.
Rick
--
Reply to: