Re: fixed libstdc++5 package
Matthias Klose <email@example.com> writes:
> Btw, looking at the reports, I see 30 submitted from i386 architectures,
> one from a powerpc machine, none from other architectures, although all
> architectures are affected. Conclusions? ;-)
Well, duh, let's see. Several architectures' build were either broken
by your libstdc++ i386 vs. i486 changes (arm), unrelated issues
(libc-sparc64 for sparc) or simply decided that maybe it was a good
idea to not upload such hideously broken packages even if they got a
''successful'' build log?
I mean, sheesh, poking fun at underused architectures is all well and
good (apparently), but you could at least pick a reasonable example...