On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:26:01PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 12:25:36AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > Please remove the following m68k binary packages from unstable. > > > > Discussion about this happened here: > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2006/04/msg00021.html > > > > xpilot-ng-client-x11_1:4.7.2-1.1 > > xpilot-ng-client-sdl_1:4.7.2-1.1 > > rss-glx_8.0.5-5 > > python-openal_0.1.5-1 > > libosgal-cvs1_20060215-5 > > libopenalpp-cvs1_20060217-2 > > libopenal-dev_0.2005080600-2.1+b1 > > flightgear_0.9.9-1 > > crystalspace_0.98-20040623-2.1 > > chromium_0.9.12-11 > > > > openal has been marked 'not-for-us' and should be in p-a-s soon, so > > those binaries should not come back. > > Well, m68k is still building those, so if I'd remove them now, they'd > return. Please ensure m68k is actually really FTBFS'ing, preferably by > having some self-test that will fail because m68k is unsupported, or if > that isn't doable, just exit 1'ing when you're building on m68k. > > Once the package is outdated on m68k, I can remove it. As it is now, > it'd return in the same version, causing all kinds of awkwardies. There was a bit of a disagreement among the m68k porters as to whether they should go or not. xpilot-ng ftbfs due to an ICE that gets about five packages. osgal-cvs is dep-waited. I don't know what the deal is with crystalspace, but we're hardly the only arch with problems there. All the other packages seem to build fine now. This particular bug was marked fixed in July. Thanks, Stephen -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <stephen@marenka.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature