samba, bossa-nova, etc....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I could help noticing that samba 2.0.2-2.1, was not available, so being
the curious guy that I am, I thought I would find out why. So I got the source
debian and tried to build binaries... Well, the reason that there is no binary
debs in the official tree is... I don't know!!
Fact is, the package built fine, no user intervention whatsoever! I am
running samba 2.0.2-2.1 now on my machine, and from what I see there is no
I suppose there is a reason for it not being available as a binary. But
in case it got missed out, might there not be other packages that are in the
same position? I mean, there may be more packages out there that are just left
out, while they compile and build fine.
Is there a list of failing packages? I know I asked this quite some
times, but you see, it's not very productive to do a comparing of the source and
binary-powerpc trees to see what's missing. That way (that is with a list),
people that are willing to help like me, just deal with problematic packages
(and the porting business is significantly sped up). As Hartmut very wisely
said, there is no need to meddle around with packages that build ok. I propose
that this porting business is a little more organized. Perhaps, a porters www
database similar to the maintainers' one in www.debian.org should be setup?
IMHO, progress would be vastly increased that way.
PS. Is there a way that the application process can be sped a little (you know,
my applying for a developer)?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----