Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'
(Hm, you shouldn't have cc'ed all...)
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:35:40AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> I haven't seen your bug report in detail (having delivery issues with
> @debian.org mail, some has been days late), but octave2.0 is unlikely to
> -- code development was frozen / stopped years ago, all development went
> into octave2.1
> -- octave2.0 is there for "legacy" code
> -- it doesn't build on all arches, and never has as it requires a pre-3.0.0
> gcc/g++ version, and those were problematic on hppa and ia64
> -- if it is fscked on arm, no one will fix it unless the arm people do
> So I would much prefer to just forget about it. If it exists in the others
> arches, can we override build attempts on arm and get on with life?
> Realistically, few to no people would use octave on arm anyway, and for the
> few brave ones, we have a working octave2.1.
> I'll intend tag this is upstream+wontfix and would like to lower severity as
> well. It is a bug, but far from RC in my book.
Lowering severity is only possible if you get the arm binary removed
(and added to the "don't build me on arm" list), because currently,
this is a regression, and a newer version failing to build on an arch
that previously it did build on, is 'serious'.
You'll have to take this up with the appropriate people though, which is
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)