Bug#60956: ARM is not supported (patch included)
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 01:02:37PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 01:04:15AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > > Even though ARM won't be in potato, I can see how supporting it is
> > > useful for arm folks running sid or whatever.
> >
> > ARM won't be released in potato?
>
> As far as I know, it will be. I haven't heard anything from them after the
> freeze date, though.
Holy crap!!
This is the *first* I've heard of it unless I'm seriously spacing out.
Um, Richard, I really wish you would take a more active role
coordinating between the release-critical teams. This is a rather
absurd state of affairs where I (boot-floppies team leader) am in the
dark about the platforms I'm supposed to be supporting.
While I have your attention, aside from ARM, it seems that all the
other platforms are in more or less ok boot-floppies shape, with the
exception of m68k.
There are m68k porters working, but I don't have *all* the
subarchitectures suppported (Atari, Amiga, Mac). m68k boot-floppies
is in a really bad way and I don't know if I can be ready with that by
the test cycle. They don't all have (nor will they, I understand) 2.2
kernels.
It would *really* *really* help out both me and the entire
boot-floppies team if someone, anyone, was able to very aggressively
ensure all the architectures have all the kernels they need in potato
at this point. Moreover, that the RC bugs on the potato kernels are
addressed and addressed quickly. I know for a fact, for instance,
that the i386 compact flavor kernels have at least one RC bug.
We do our best, but it would really help the team if someone could
make sure that the archive issues are straight.
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: