Re: Good news re: man-db
On 22 Oct 1997, James Troup wrote:
> No, my fault, I should have read it better.
I've been guilty of the same :)
> IMHO, you should speak up. The level of "qualification" necessary to
> become a maintainer these days has dropped dramatically thanks to
> debmake and friends, and more often than not non-i386 maintainers are
> a lot more clueful than ``real'' developers.
> And in any event, I've found the vast majority of maintainers rarely
> think about any other architecture than their own; if you see
> something that will adversely affect your architecture, shout and
> shout loud.
I just kinda did and I'm glad I did. I agree that alot of the
maintainers on debian-devel only consider the Intel architecture and
forget about problems on other architectures. In fact, I think we'll
really start seeing problems with the bug tracking system once multiple
architectures are introduced, despite what everyone else seems to think
(let's face it, how many x86 maintainers even KNOW that the size of
some of these data types can be different based on architecture).
Which reminds me....
For the list participants' info, I just added my ramblings to a discussion
on PAM and the 2.0 release. Since the participants of the original
conversation seem to have been x86-centric, I figured I'd notify them of
the problems that we've had with PAM so far (namely, that it doesn't work)
and mention that the PPC and/or Sparcs may have the same problem. My
opinion and suggestion was that we make PAM a goal but not a requirement
for 2.0 release.
This brings up a few things for us. First off, I still haven't had too
much time to play with PAM or to figure out why the libs just fail
miserably on the Alpha. I also haven't been able to keep up with the
current status of PAM upstream-wise. Since we have new readership on this
list since I last posted about PAM, I was wondering if anyone might want
to either test or take on getting PAM to work. I have some patches that I
made that I could forward to anyone who's interested....
In short, I'd just like to get this resolved for us to be more consistent
with the x86 dist. They seem to want PAM pretty badly, but are just now
getting around to implementing it which gives us time to work on it more.
Thoughts?
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-alpha-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: