Re: Etch/m68k

[Michael Schmitz <schmitz@mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>]

> So now that etch is finalized, I guess it's time to start working on our
> m68k bits -- not having a moving target to work towards is always
> helpful.
>
> If I understand things right, we can upload packages to etch-m68k by way
> of using "etch-m68k" in place of "unstable" (or whatever) in the
> changelog.

Does that explain failures when signing packages (version built not
registered as building anymore)?

The changelog munging doesn't require a patched sbuild; munging on log
signing is sufficient I think.

> I'm guessing the best way to move forward from here is to start listing
> the differences between etch/m68k and "regular" m68k; if nobody has a
> better idea, I'll be comparing Packages files during the next few days
> to find out what we should be focusing on.
>
> After that, it's probably best to get some machines up and running to
> build for etch/m68k. Most of the packages that aren't built there yet
> aren't because we were backlogged at the time, I guess, and those should
> probably build without issues. It will require a patched sbuild,
> probably, but that's not a big issue.

Patched to do what differently?

	Michael