Re: i386 is a port, too (was: Re: choices for autobuilder, ...
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: i386 is a port, too (was: Re: choices for autobuilder, ...
- From: Joel Klecker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:13:25 -0700
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <19990527225201.A1333@flora.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> <19990528001859.C609@flora.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> <email@example.com> <19990529023328.D273@flora.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <19990531130643.C21284@maxime.u-strasbg.fr> <email@example.com>
At 15:22 -0500 1999-06-01, John Goerzen wrote:
And, still nothing has been done about the problem with sources. ALL
architectures, including i386, are now in a situation in which their
packages cannot be built from source because they have some packages
which are older then the counterparts on a different arch. Sometimes
the newer versions break on one arch but not another.
If you mean the glibc 2.1 fixes, most of that rests squarely on the
shoulders of lazy maintainers.
Some packages have glibc 2.1 fixes that have been ignored for > 100 days.
You might say NMU, but that is hard when it's 50 or 100 packages
you're talking about.
It's very frustrating to fix a simple glibc 2.1 source issue (such as
can be found by browsing http://master.debian.org/%7Ekoptein/) file
an important bug with the patch and have it ignored by an otherwise
Joel Klecker (aka Espy) Debian GNU/Linux Developer