Re: Status of clisp

[Martin Quinson <Martin.Quinson@ens-lyon.fr>]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 06:42:11PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:56:07PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> 
> >      clisp | 1999-07-22-4 |       testing | m68k
> >      clisp | 1999-07-22-4 |      unstable | m68k
> >      clisp | 1999-07-22-5 |        stable | source, alpha, i386, powerpc
> >      clisp | 1999-07-22-5 |       testing | powerpc
> >      clisp | 2000-03-06-2 |       testing | source, alpha, i386
> >      clisp | 1:2.27-0.5   |      unstable | source, alpha, i386, powerpc, s390
> > 
> > Currently the program has major (multiple) portability problems with
> > all other archs, as all you can see from buildd. 
> > IMHO, all portability problems should at this
> > time be forwarded to upstream (who did not release update since last july),
> > and control file modified to build only on valid archs.
> > Or dropped on woody :(
> 
> As you can see from the changelog and WNPP bug, I started working on this
> package when I found that there was a new upstream release after a long
> dormant period.  I had hoped that it would address some of the long-standing
> bugs, but it turned out to have at least as many problems as the previous
> version.  During the time that I was working on it, I received several
> wishlist bugs indicating that there is quite a bit of interest in this
> package, but it will probably be a lot of work to get it built on all Debian
> architectures.

Just curiousity: is it a RC bug to declare a program i386 only when nothing
really justify it (beside a long list of upstream portability bugs) ?

Thanks, Mt.