Re: i386 is a port, too (was: Re: choices for autobuilder, ...
Chris Lawrence <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On May 29, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > thanks for your kind reply. I will definitely go for wanna build now.
> > On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 08:51:48PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > > * can't deal with, say, a maintainer uploading
> > > architecture-dependant packages for an architecture which isn't i386
> > >
> > > BTW, this last case may happen to me soon, as I move all of my work
> > > over to my new Ultra5.
> > !!! This gets more and more important. "Ports" are no longer ports anymore,
> > but primary development platforms for many people. It's important to raise
> > awareness of this.
> > It seems more people are needed to build i386 ports of packages.
> I believe Roman Hodek has addressed the "i386 as a port" issue in the
> latest buildd in CVS. He's bypassed quinn-diff and is now using the
> Sources files somehow.
Ehm, no, he's by-passed create-source-packages so he can get epochs;
AFAIK, he's still using quinn diff. And yes, quinn diff is, quelle
surprise, the component which treats i386 as the primary port. I
haven't fixed this yet, because a) no one has come up with a way for
me to have more than 24 hours in a day and my job can demand upto 18
hours of any one day... and b) it really isn't a big a problem as
people like to make out. Having said that, the ground work for a fix
has been done by Roderick writing the script which produces the
misnamed Sources packages now in the archive...