Re: ARM port(s) BoF at DebConf
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Adam D. Barratt
> On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 20:09 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Steve McIntyre <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > Both armel and armhf are doing well, covering ~96% of the archive. We
>> (*1) and if someone _really_ wants a debug build of that particular
>> problematic package, on a build and distro port that's still
>> experimental, well, surely they can compile it themselves, using their
>> own resources, yes?
> Neither wheezy nor the armhf port contained in it are experimental. If
> that's not what you meant, please be clearer.
yes i used the wrong word: apologies. i was trying to convey the
following in a concise way, and chose the word "experimental", which i
realise in hindsight doesn't cover half of it: "doesn't yet have as
many users as e.g. i386/amd64, hasn't been around as long as
i386/amd64, hasn't got hardware that the average user can buy at a
spec approaching that of i386/amd64 yet, and doesn't have as many
packages successfully and reliably building as i386/amd64".
btw continuing on the thread on debian-arm (only) i put forward a
[temporary!] procedure for review which is an interactive balancing
act to relieve the burden of having excessive linker-related loads,
moving it down instead to later inconvenience for users. of course,
if the package is "perfect" and there *aren't* any bugreports then the
interim proposed procedure has done its job.