On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:15:43AM -0500, H. S. Teoh wrote: > Of the three bugs, one is recent, one is barely over a week old, but the > m68k problem is a month old. OK, so it *is* making progress, so perhaps > it's not as bad as it appears to be. The m68k problem is *probably* fixed or downgradable, I'm told. The "relocation error" bugs that're popping up probably aren't fixed. > I guess my original point was that the problem with m68k is that it takes > so long to build essential packages like gcc and glibc, which means that > every time there's a problem with m68k, everybody's held up for a couple > o' months. Which is a nice thought, but it's simply not true, because there have always been _other_ bugs open. If it were just a matter of temporarily partially breaking m68k, that'd be a no-brainer, and would already have been done. It hasn't been, because it's not. The m68k, arm, etc issues are not the real problem here. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature