Re: HPPA still *ed...
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 07:43:39PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > The new glibc went into testing despite hppa, so it's probably
> > > safe to assume that the new gcc will follow suit.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't essential packages from main
> supposed to stay forever in unstable, until they build for all
> architectures, at which point it is cuatiously allowed to move to
> testing? Why was glibc allowed to slide down to testing when hppa
> (assuming that hppa is the only case) didn't build?
Exceptions are sometimes made. In this case not having glibc 2.3.2 in
testing was doing more harm to development than having it without hppa
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]