On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 13:21 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Yes, 'm68k' and 'future' in one sentence. Amazing, isn't it? Surely we > > must be joking? > > Hey, I haven't seen any activity wrt m68k archive (re)qualificiation. > > Given m68k's dropped back below the 95% cutoff (and has spent about > 1/3rd of the last 90 days beneath it) and has a number of red squares > still on the release arch qualification page it seems certain at this > point that you won't get a "release arch" exception any time soon. > > Hurd and kfreebsd pages are at: > > http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/kfreebsd-i386 > http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/hurd-i386 > > Please be as detailed as possible, and try to avoid referring to closed, > unverifiable resources such as buildd.net. > > > Anyway. To cope with the above issues, the m68k port's developers have > > been looking for alternatives for quite a while now. It has been > > suggested that we start employing distcc or similar things so that we > > would be able to use cross-compilers on much faster hardware, but for > > various reasons this is not practical. > > BTW, it's not very encouraging when you say "Yes, we'll definitely try > this and see how it works!" then, six months later, fail to have ever > bothered, and can only handwave it away as being "impractical". > > Cheers, > aj > Is there any known coldfire systems that would offer a faster build environment? Mark
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part