[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: kicking non-free archive out without a vote [Re: Package Reorganisations]



On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 01:23:59PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Richard Braakman wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 03:01:45PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > Since a fixed libforms0.89 was uploaded on 14 Sep 2000, I think
> > > we are heading for major problems as long as contrib and non-free
> > > packages aren't autobuilt.
> > Not necessarily.  The package will be removed from testing if it doesn't
> > get recompiled.  I don't think that's a major problem. 
> That's rich.  It's not a major problem for you, but it's exactly
> what I meant.

Take a pill. It's obviously not a problem for you either, since you
don't have m68k or alpha machines, and it's obviously not a problem for
the people with m68k and alpha machines since they're not bothering to
build them...

If something's already in testing, and there's an updated version for some
architectures in unstable but not others, the package won't get updated in
testing until either:
	(a) the other architectures get around to building the package
or	(b) the maintainer requests the package be removed from those other
	    architectures (if it doesn't build at all anymore, say), and
	    nothing else on those architectures is broken by that

> >                                                         It just
> > means that people who want specific contrib and non-free
> > packages to stay in testing will have to make sure they get
> > updated in time.  Richard Braakman
> And how are we supposed to do that?  I need access to machines
> running woody or unstable on alpha, sparc, m68k and powerpc

No you don't: the package isn't going to be blithely removed from i386
just because it's not built for arm.

> This is _effectively_ getting non-free off the archives without a
> vote.

Nonsense.

Since you're here though, what's the deal with libforms0.86? It appears
to be libc5 only, and appears to depend on xpm4.7 (the libc5 version of
xpm), which doesn't exist anymore with the X4 debs. Should it be removed,
or is someone going to start maintaining some xpm4.7 compatability stuff?

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpNs4eE6qhFf.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: