[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 10:53:39PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Bill Allombert <ballombe@master.debian.org> writes:
> > You did not ask Roman to provide examples of "fixes are just stuck in the
> > BTS", you picked your own bug and then complains it is not a good example
> > ? Is not that non-sense ?
> No, what I did was I asked how his claim relates to a particular bug
> in a package affecting me, and he responded by saying that the bug was
> an example of his claim, when, in fact, it wasn't.

You asked: 

| Does this explain why guile-1.6 is still not compiled for m68k?

Maybe you just wanted to know if the bug is solved in the meanwhile, but
your way to ask is very, uhm, bad, because it includes some sort of attack. 
Your question can be understood as "Why the fsckin hell didn't you managed
to get *MY* beloved package guile-1.6 on your fsckin slow arch, you
This is of course an exaggeration of the slight aggressive undertone in your
question to make it clear how your question can be understood by others.
A probably better way to get your problem solved would have been:

"Oh, great... Do you think that the bug which keeps guile-1.6 failing on
m68k will be solved soon? Is there anything I can help or do?"

Anyway, Roman wrote about a general issue and you forced him into a specific
package discussion (not to say flame war). I don't think that either Roman
nor you are happy about the way the discussion went. Do you?

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

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

Reply to: