[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How should we deal with 'pointless-on-this-arch' packages?

Hash: SHA1

On 10/15/06 00:03, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@connexer.com> writes:
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I think it should be in the porters control what packages to
> build for an arch with some guidelines what sort of packages can
> be removed without loosing release status. For example removing
> KDE would not be OK. Removal should be reserved for extreme cases
> though. Things that just need long to build should be put into
> weak_no_auto and limited to the stronger buildds of an arch.

Why *shouldn't* KDE, GNOME, Firefox/Iceweasel, Tbird, and anything
that requires Mesa/OpenGL, and all of Charles Plessy's scientific
packages  be marked do_not_build on 68k/Coldfire & ARM?

If an Amiga (using the unaccelerated fb driver?) is running as an X
Terminal for a powerful, modern box, the Amiga would need to process
the OpenGL commands, no?

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: