SBCL blocked at 0.9.16 in testing
Hi Thiemo!
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:31:54 +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Liam Healy wrote:
>> and then several architectures on which there are no binaries (alpha,
>> mipsel, sparc), but that shouldn't block the other architectures,
>> should it?
>
> There _are_ binaries for these three in lenny, but not in sid, this
> blocks testing migration.
>
> Given the bootstrap problem, we should IMHO rather get SBCL going
> again on those architectures than ask for removal of the 0.9.16
> binaries from lenny.
Since manpower for the Debian Common Lisp Team is lacking (help is
always appreciated), I think that we should maintain only the
architectures we can provide support for.
> The current state (from a upstream perspective) is:
> - sparc should be fine. In Debian it fails due to a (unrelated)
> ghostscript bug when building documentation.
Is there any reference of it in the Debian BTS, for both SBCL and
ghostscript? If any, can the SBCL bug be tagged as blocked by the
ghostscript one?
>> So is it correct to say that newer versions of SBCL are blocked from
>> testing on most architectures because of 474402?
>
> Not quite. Btw, does somebody on this list plan to upload 1.0.16?
Peter is a bit busy lately and FWIW me too (especially now that the
Swiss LinuxDays 2008 are approaching [1]), so if you want to upload
1.0.16, please go on!
Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
Footnotes:
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-events-eu/2008/04/msg00024.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-common-lisp-devel/attachments/20080430/58b3a68f/attachment.pgp
Reply to: