Re: [RFU] drscheme
- To: mdanish@andrew.cmu.edu
- Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: [RFU] drscheme
- From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:28:26 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20010703232826.A12111@fisch.cyrius.com>
- In-reply-to: <20010619221835.A2569@fisch.cyrius.com>; from tbm@cyrius.com on Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:18:35PM +0200
- References: <871yolz4yl.fsf@public1.ptt.js.cn> <8766dxtifc.fsf@priss.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> <20010616132104.A25872@fisch.cyrius.com> <20010616102655.A24312@emu> <20010619221835.A2569@fisch.cyrius.com>
* tbm <tbm@cyrius.com> [20010619 22:18]:
> So, rscheme is a PITA to build, keeps a package which should be
> removed from removal and has issues on SPARC... what does rscheme
> offer that bigloo doesn't have? i.e. is there a good reason to
> keep rscheme or could we remove it (and upload it again when/if
> upstream sorts out these issues).
Actually, this is a dumb idea because rscheme was in stable.
So, how can rscheme be fixed? Can you talk to upstream again,
Matthew?
Reply to: