Re: i386-only packages: porting bugs "wishlist"?
Thanks so much for your helpful reply! I've changed the Architecture:
field in maxima, and closed the porting bugs.
Take care,
Henrique M Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> writes:
> --i9LlY+UWpKt15+FH
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001, Camm Maguire wrote:
> > Greetings! If an upstream package knowingly depends on
> > architecture-specific assembler code and kernel features and has not
> > been ported by upstream for non-x86 architectures, nor is intended to
> > be ported by upstream in the foreseeable future, can't bugs along the
> > lines of "doesn't build on arch ..." be downgraded from serious to
> > wishlist? gcl is the package in question -- maxima depends on it, it
>
> Only if you correctly stated for which archs the package should be built in
> its control file AFAIK. Also, any packages that depend on this package
> should probably have the archs they are to be built for restricted in their
> control files.
>
> --=20
> "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
> them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
> where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
> Henrique Holschuh
>
> --i9LlY+UWpKt15+FH
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAjrKhe8ACgkQ7iXePxzbD+OYfQCfVeJZpI9vp7eTWI2q8S6DcFSg
> jbUAn0migHDCFdFvVSFMKZVDfhXOi8Xe
> =sabF
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --i9LlY+UWpKt15+FH--
>
>
--
Camm Maguire camm@enhanced.com
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
Reply to: