[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: iasl (acpica-unix) 20060912-4 to unstable or experimental (or nothing)?

On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 17:20:44 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Mattia Dongili (malattia@linux.it) [070114 14:39]:
> > aba (Cc-ed) followed the issue. So basically -4 fixes some forced FTBFS
> > due to bugs in the iasl code generation and load/store unaligned
> > accesses (#406034 and #406558) as a followup to #401153.
> > 
> > Now, is it worth trying to push for -4 in etch? the only package
> > build-depending on iasl is qemu which already includes workarounds so
> > maybe -4 can wait (and never appear as there's a new upstream release
> > available).
> I don't consider -4 as "required for release", but of course adding more
> architectures that actually work is a good thing (and thanks to the
> testcase we'll notice if something goes wrong). So, in the end it's the
> maintainers decision, nothing special from the release team.

FTR, qemu does not Build-Depend anymore on iasl, so it's fine for
now, it would be really nice to start Build-Depending on it again
after the release, though.


Reply to: