Re: NMU procedure
2011/2/28 Tollef Fog Heen <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> ]] Hector Oron
> | > * Raising the severity doesn't really imply anything
> | True. Would you suggest some better way to proceed with porter-NMU?
> I would think it quite rushed to be pushing NMUs for an archicture not
> in Debian and not even in dpkg yet. Even more so when it's not accepted
> as a release goal for wheezy.
Thanks for the comments.
>From my point of view, it is not rushed, but we might be more noisy
about it, we are working in the port since spring last year (almost a
year) and most than 90% of the port is completed. I plan to post an
update on that soon(ish).
Regarding `dpkg', there are technical issues about adding the
architecture as `dpkg' only provides one-to-one mappings between
architectures, and here we have a case were two different Debian
architectures (two different ABI) map into one single triplet. There
is on-going effort to solve that problem. Thanks to `dpkg'
maintainers. Please read DebianBug#594179 for more information.
Even more, there is no yet a decision if the architecture is accepted
or not in the "official" archive, we have not requested such thing
(yet) as we do not meet archive criteria for now. But as other
unofficial ports, I guess it is correct to add support for it into
"Our Sun unleashes tremendous flares expelling hot gas into the Solar
System, which one day will disconnect us."
-- Day DVB-T stop working nicely
Video flare: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100510.html