Re: [firstname.lastname@example.org: Re: Bug#362590: FTBFS on m68k]
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:29:29PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> 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 Once the package is outdated on m68k, I can remove it.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.
So... this bug can be closed, or...?
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)