Re: Some questions for the DPL candidates
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 06:15:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 02:46:39AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > But when X fails to install into testing it really does hurt the
> > release; many packages in Debian depend on X. When X, Perl (and thus
so we make an exemption for X? What comes next, boot-floppies?
> For example glibc and gcc had some problems getting ported to arm for a
> fair while; X had problems (and still does) working on m68k (in particular
> xserver-xfree86); alsa needs some bugs fixed; libqt2.2 wasn't building
> on alpha without a newer version of gcc.
Just a few comment on the m68k issues (quite OT for -vote?):
There was not much support for m68k in the X 4.0.x packages, it took me well
over a month to get X _build_ on m68k. If there were somebody who knew
something about X (I know nothing about it), this would have been fixed in a
day. The xserver is still not running, I think its not too hard to fix, but
I have no time for that. Again, somebody with a clue might get this fixed
in another day (not counting compilation time...).
The buildd did not build packages for a long time, since a) the ftp mirror
ran out of space and b) binutils have a serious bug on m68k makeing many
builds fail. Hopefully the binutils are working now (thanks to a new
potential clueful m68k maintainer) and we might catch up with the rest
again. Now if we got a list of important packages which need to be built,
Michael asked once? twice? for that and got nothing...
X is current on m68k (unless there was another new version which was again
not announced on debian-x), glibc is current, apt fails to build but
probably the bug is found, perl was built by the maintainer. What else is
_important_ to get built immediately?
I just wish everybody would try to give m68k a hand before they start
complaining.
And now everybody join hands and go to vote.
Christian
Reply to: