Re: [buildd] Etch?

[Ingo Juergensmann <ij@2006.bluespice.org>]

On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 02:37:53PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:

> > I think we should start with sorting packages out that have a long term
> > history of FTBFS. It seems unlikely to me that these packages can be fixed
> > in time for the release. Adding to N-F-U or P-A-S would be best.
> > The main goal should be to give a stable release to all those m68k users out
> > there, not to keep as much packages buildable on m68k as possible. 
> Our last successful build of subversion was 1.2.0-1 on June 14, 2005.
> The current version is 1.3.2-5. Subversion is blocking 7 packages.
> Our last successful build of emacs21 was 21.4a-1 on March 18, 2005.
> The current version is 21.4a-6. emacs21 is blocking 14 packages.
> If we can't build basic tools like subversion and emacs21, does the rest 
> of that really matter?

Depends on your point of view. 
>From my POV I can easily miss those packages on m68k, because I don't use
them. Other people won't be able to live without those ones. It's a matter
of what goals do you want to achieve: release with etch and miss some
packages or try to solve all bugs, but won't be a release candidate. 

As we don't have much time left to fix all those bugs, I'm in favour of the
first option. 

If someone really needs those tools, he might compile the sources on his own
with an older version of gcc or such. 

-- 
Ciao...                //        Fon: 0381-2744150 
      Ingo           \X/         SIP: 2744150@sipgate.de

gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij/public_key.asc