Re: *confusion*
Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@becket.net> [20020101 13:24]:
> > I'm afraid that doesn't answer my question.
>
> It's another architecture (like sparc or alpha) which has will however
> not be released with woody. They stopped uploading new packages a
> while ago and thus package dependencies are broken. Since sh is not a
> candidate for woody, you can simply ignore this.
Ah, thanks. Now I understand.
Can we prune it from the QA lists? It would make them a better tool,
I think.
Reply to: