> building != running > > And I am getting really annoyed of your double standard regarding > build requirements.
We have to put things in perspective before claiming double-standards. > If a package cannot be built on a single-core machine with 256 MB RAM > due to the number of CPUs, you claim this would be an enormous problem > equal to dropping support for running Debian on that machine. Because I can build approximately 99.99% of all Debian packages with a single-core machine. There needs to be a *very* powerful reason for a package to "need" more than one CPU, and so far I have never found a package which "legitimately" needs more than one CPU. I have yet to see a case where more than one CPU is actually *required*. > But if a package cannot be built on a single-core machine with > 256 MB RAM due to the amount of RAM, this is apparently fine for you. Because only 40% - 50% of Debian packages may be built with such amount of memory, and also, because if a package is not buildable with a given amount of memory, it's usually not the package's fault, but a real requirement from gcc. > The result is the same in both cases - a machine supported by Debian > cannot build a package. Except that in one case we have a bug and we both agree that it's a bug, and in the other case it is not a bug and we both agree that it's not a bug. I don't see what double standards you refer here. Why should I be equally upset for something which is a bug and has an easy fix and for something which is not a bug and it does not have any easy fix at all? Thanks.