Re: fixed libstdc++5 package
James Troup writes:
> Matthias Klose <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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...
It was not my intention to point the conclusions in this direction :)