Re: FTFBS in sarge
Will Newton (email@example.com) wrote on 11:57:07PM 08/09/04:
> Robin (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> > [...]
> > those architectures from that point on. I agree with you that the *clisp*
> > package w/o FFI on some architectures shouldn't have made it into testing
> > but it did, and that's how things stand now.
> clisp without mips FFI is IMO better than a clisp 5 years old, which was the
> alternative, unfortunately the fixes to this aren't very simple and the
> upstream do not have mips hardware.
My above point sounds a bit harsh and rereading it I should have added "...
from the perspective of mcvs" or something to that effect. But the practice
of building (fundamentally) different feature sets per architecture is very
inconvenient from a depending package's point of view. As far as mcvs is
concerned, the clisp package was broken (for mips e.o.) from the first upload
w/o FFI onwards. Since it didn't get discovered in time because it only
depends on clisp at build time, no bugs were filed until clisp was already in
testing. But that still doesn't stop me from wishing it hadn't made it in ;)