Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> You claimed that it's a bad idea to drop m68k as a release candidate,
> because the only way bugs will get fixed is if maintainers are forced
> to include patches.
I didn't say anything about "forcing", that's your conclusion.
> In fact, the one m68k porting problem that affects packages I am
> concerned with has lied dormant for a year, until today.
You pick a single example and draw general conclusions from it and you
accuse me of "deliberately misleading"?
> Your message was deliberately misleading, designed to suggest that
> there had been a fix in for a while (even if "not that old yet"), when
> in fact, the patch was posted *after* my message.
What the hell is your problem? Yes, the patch is _one_ day old and instead
of thanking me for finally fixing this problem, I get this?
bye, Roman
Reply to: