Re: skipping bioinformatics on some architectures ?
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013, peter green wrote:
> If a release architecture is getting behind on building on a long
> term basis then IMO either more buildd hardware should be obtained
> or the port should lose it's release status.
> But that isn't what we are talking about here, we are talking about
> an architecture that was kicked out of testing and kicked out of the
> official archive years ago, degraded to an almost unusuable state
> and is now attempting to become usable again. For them it's
> probablly far more important to build as many "important but not yet
> built" pckages as possible than it is to make sure every package
> they have built is up to date.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot