On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 19:34, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:25:16PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:39:11PM +0300, Halil Demirezen wrote: > > > Are we in dilemma on "should we support arch that are not used > > > widely?" or "We should support all architectures" > > > > > > what i prefer is the second one. > > > > me too! any package that doesn't build on m68k or arm is broken and > > needs to be fixed, even if it works on x86 by chance! > > So, are you volunteering to help those of us without access to either of > the above architectures with "bugs" found in our packages? I'm not > saying that all architectures shouldn't be supported equally. I just > don't have access to either of the above architectures to correct > problems found in my packages. > Strange, the rest of us Debian Developers have access to all of these strange platforms ... http://raw.no/debian/machines.html If your package has a bug affecting arm, login to debussy and fix it. If your package has a bug affecting mips, login to casals and fix it. If your package has a bug affecting m68k, login to kullervo and fix it. If you're going to claim that you don't have the knowledge to investigate and fix difficult problems, perhaps you should reconsider whether you are able to maintain your packages? I'm sure the box admins will happily set up a chroot wrapper for d-i work if you ask them nicely. Scott -- Who is sick of this "I don't have an m68k box to fix my bug" excuse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part