On Wed Aug 06 10:42, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a pretty bad idea to NFU software > >> that can be compiled on an architecture even if it doesn't seem that useful. > >> I have the X11 libraries on my NSLU2, which lacks any graphical output, but > >> I use it as an X11 server. > > > >The argument for not building various packages on s390 is that s390 has *no > >hardware*, so anything that depends on local hardware to be useful has no > >purpose on s390. > > > >That doesn't apply for hpodder, which is not a hardware interface; but > >that's a plausible explanation for why the package was put in NFU, if the > >buildd maintainer thought it was hardware-dependent. > > It would be nice if buildd admins told people they were doing it, of > course, so that maintainers don't have to guess why their packages > mysteriously aren't being built... > Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide my package isn't for them, as long as it doesn't stop it being for anyone else either... Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature