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

Re: Bug#425011: gcc-4.1: FTBFS on m68k and arm, multiple definitions of ffi_prep_closure

Matthias Klose wrote:
> Lennert Buytenhek writes:
>> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 03:48:00PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>> package:gcc-4.1
>>>> version:4.1.2-7
>>>> severity:serious
>>>> from the relavent buildd logs:
>>> Note, that the severity is not RC for 68k; I do not intend to fix
>>> that.  Same for arm, and arm porters don't seem to care that much,
>> (I didn't even know there was an issue, and I wonder how I should
>> have known that there was.)
> ? sent to debian ports ...
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2007/05/msg00016.html
>>> so maybe we should drop arm as a release architecture?
>> This isn't directed towards you, but a general remark is that all the
>> talk about dropping arm as a release architecture over the last couple
>> of years (for reasons that seem mostly beyond my control), and the
>> resulting uncertainty has definitely made most of my motivation to
>> work on the Debian ARM port disappear.
>> I don't think anyone enjoys working on a project that is in a
>> 'maybe-sort-of-almost-dropped' state pretty much all the time.
>> Maybe the ARM port should just be dropped to have it over with.
> sure, why not. apparently there's not even one developer machine
> available.

Which is not the porters' responsibility, otherwise I think there would be one
or more available during a long time already.

I don't see any decent rationale to drop the ARM port atm. Not having enough
buildd power and developer machines available atm is a PITA, though isn't the
porters' responsability at all AFAICS.



Reply to: