On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 18:37, Steve Langasek wrote: > Outdated binaries need to be replaced or removed first, otherwise we > would have binaries in testing with no corresponding source. Okay, I thought perhaps you could just move in the new version... guess not. > The bug report about the m68k build failures suggests that it should > build better with gcc-3.4, which is now in the archive. You might > consider preparing a package that's configured to use gcc-3.4 as the > compiler on m68k, and getting someone to do a test build for you, so > that the updated package has a chance of getting into sarge without > requiring ftpmaster intervention. I would prefer not to do this since the build takes almost 2 days on m68k, which is a lot to ask of a m68k builder considering the package has no possible reason to be built on that architecture other than to find bugs in gcc. Is it your opinion that the m68k binaries won't get removed in time for sarge? -- Mike Furr <mfurr@debian.org> 1024D/124B26F3 5B9F 587F BC5C D823 50CE 4DB0 ED93 CA29 124B 26F3
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part