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

Bug#121697: gcc-m68k-linux (was Bug#121697: mpg123: Man page in /usr/man, not /usr/share/man)

Hi Wouter!

You wrote:

> > > I'd heard back nothing about adopting the package. Unless anyone's
> > > stated needing the package, I'd be happy with it being removed. Once
> > > finals are over, I'll be looking at the new gcc/binutils packaging.
> > 
> > AFAIR, it wasn't removed in Summer because the 68k guys said it was
> > needed.
> It is most certainly not needed. Who said it was?

Hmm, nobody did actually. Martin Michlmayr asked about this on
debian-68k last july. A discussion followed in which
idalton@ferret.dyndns.org offered to fix/NMU/whatever it. After that the
thread died. Then, in september, when I asked about this on debian-qa,
someone said that it was needed. However, it isn't:

| In <Pine.LNX.4.21.0107041032500.571-100000@rock.dezevensprong.local>, 
| Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
| On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
| > Is there any reason to keep gcc-m68k-linux in Debian?  It is not well
| > maintained (i.e. hasn't made the FHS transition).  Is it needed, or
| > can it be removed?
| IMO, it's completely useless in this state. It's that old that it's not
| even possible to compile a kernel with the thing.
| The last maintainer upload was in 1998; the last non-maintainer upload
| was
| done to fix a dependency, this year.
| Since the normal gcc package should allow one to compile a
| cross-compiler
| (Which I tried, but did not succeed to do, probably because I made an
| error somewhere), I don't think it's still necessary to keep
| gcc-m68k-linux in the archive.

So, I think it can be safely removed.

Kind regards,
| Bas Zoetekouw                  | Si l'on sait exactement ce   |
|--------------------------------| que l'on va faire, a quoi    |
| zoetekw@phys.uu.nl             | bon le faire?                |
|    bas@A-Es2.uu.nl             |               Pablo Picasso  |

Reply to: