Re: i386 is a port, too (was: Re: choices for autobuilder, ...
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:10:35AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
> > !!! 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 mentioned this *LAST YEAR* already and was essentially rebuffed.
> Many packages in i386, including ones such as elm, are outdated. For
> me, this is because my development platform is Alpha and nobody (or
> very few) people are porting things back to i386.
Another related topic is that the web pages only track i386 packages, and no
architecture stuff. Some package, that were not compiled for i386 are not even
in the web pages, other are quite outdated.
(and i compile mostly under ppc, tried to build a package for i386 on va one
time, but was not able to do it (i think va doesnt have the latest debhelper
stuff sicne it didn't know about dh_link ...))