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 <aj@humbug.org.au> <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!''
Attachment:
pgpM5juOpRI63.pgp
Description: PGP signature