Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Cc: Andreas Barth <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Michael Schmitz <email@example.com>, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?
- From: Bill Allombert <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 06:55:47 -0500
- Message-id: <20060921115547.GA11266@master.debian.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Bill Allombert <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Andreas Barth <email@example.com>, Michael Schmitz <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Steve Langasek <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20060918124747.GF2926@mails.so.argh.org>
- References: <20060918065502.GA7069@mauritius.dodds.net> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060918124747.GF2926@mails.so.argh.org>
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:47:47PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Eh, what are you talking about? Debian is getting way better than it
> used to be, at least that's the impression I have. If you have another
> opinion, please share that one with me (but that's off-topic for
> debian-release as well as debian-m68k).
gcc-4.0 was extremly brittle and should never has been made the default
compiler in sid. It was not working correctly on i386 let alone on
others platforms. I don't remember a similar issue with any other sid
compiler. I spent more working around compiler issues than I ever had
I am quite glad we moved to gcc-4.1, but gcc-4.0 was a total waste of
time and certainly contributed for a great part for the current state
of m68k. Given the porter team are not responsible for the choice of
tool chains version for their architecture, they should not have to bear
So I urge you to give Debian/m68k a fair chance.
Imagine a large red swirl here.