Re: is m68k really ready for testing?
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:25:34AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Still, he also referred to m68k as a 'toy' architecture. And
> even if they both are technical terms, it's still insulting.
Get over it. m68k is an architecture, not a loved one. And it's dead,
face it. I have nothing against the m68k port; I've used it and I
think it's pretty cool. However nothing excuses the way that it's
holding up testing, etc. m68k is a toy port, and this will be the case
at least until basic tools such as gcc, binutils, vim, and perl are
made to work correctly on it. If you care so much about m68k, you
really ought to bring it up to par so that it's a respectable port.