On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:16:43PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > - Get someone to hand-build the new illuminator package on a sparc > > > running 2.6. The drawbacks of this are that it hides the buildd issue > > > rather than ensuring it gets fixed, and that sparc porters are > > > currently hard to come by. > > > - Have the illuminator sparc binaries removed from unstable once it's > > > built on other archs, and wait until the sparc autobuilder is upgraded > > > before they get back in. Inconvenient for any sparc users of the > > > package (especially since, with only one sparc autobuilder, I don't > > > know that there are any plans to upgrade the kernel in the near > > > future), but leaves it up to the maintainer and the sparc porters to > > > get this taken care of. > > > - Have illuminator removed from testing once the other packages are > > > ready to go, and leave it out of testing until the sparc autobuilder > > > is fixed. This is really only a fallback option if the second option > > > above isn't acceptable for some reason. > > > It would be great if you would be willing to follow through on this > > > issue as well. > > I'm certainly happy to, although I'm not entirely sure what to do about it > > other than just remember it, ask the package maintainer if removing the > > sparc build is okay, and reminding to do that as part of the transition. > > If that's what you meant by follow through, absolutely. If you meant > > more, please let me know. > I'm fine with removing the sparc build of illuminator. Thanks. Do I > need to do anything to make this happen? Yes, you will need to file a bug against ftp.debian.org requesting removal of the binaries. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature