Re: RFD: Architecture field being retarded? [was: How to specify architectures *not* to be built?]
Andreas Rottmann <a.rottmann@gmx.at> writes:
> >>>>> "Russell" == Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> writes:
>
> Russell> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:35, Geert Stappers wrote:
> >> When the cause of the buildproblem is in the package, fix the
> >> problem there. The package maintainer hasn't to do it by
> >> himself, he can/must/should cooperate with people of other
> >> architectures. A sign like "!hurd-i386" looks to me like "No
> >> niggers allowed", it is not an invitation to cooperation.
>
> Russell> So you think I should keep my selinux packages as
> Russell> architecture any, even though they will never run on on
> Russell> HURD or BSD?
>
> Thanks, Russell, you are making my point. It is similiar with radvd,
> which was designed for Linux/BSD and won't work on the HURD, since it
> simply isn't supported upstream. I am not in the position to port
> radvd to the HURD, altough this would be the ideal way to go.
What about setting !hurd-i386 and file a bug regarding it with the tag
"Help needed".
That should encourage people to help and prevent autobuilders to send
build-failed mails for every release.
Just a random thought.
Goswin
Reply to: