On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:22 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Op di, 08-03-2005 te 10:33 -0800, schreef Clint Byrum: > > How much would it help with the current problems if we just picked 3 > > arches(mipsel, s390, ???) > > This argument has been brought up so many times by now that I'm amazed > people /still/ try it. > > The answer is, simply, 'not'. Go learn to use google if you want to know > why. >
Good idea.. google is a great tool for this sort of thing. I put this one in: site:lists.debian.org architectures sarge debian-devel Lets see what some of the best hits were... http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/08/msg00017.html "- Toolchain fixes. A misbuilt gcc-3.3 package on alpha left us with a broken compiler in sarge -- which aside from being release-critical, made it rather hard to build packages uploaded to the testing-proposed-updates queue. This is being addressed as we speak, though with a little more pain than we'd like; by dinstall on the 29th, we should have a working gcc on all architectures in sarge." http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/05/msg01368.html "To fix the ptrace bug, the s390 and mips architectures rolled the ptrace security fix into kernel-patch-2.4.17-s390 and kernel-patch-2.4.{17,19}-mips. This makes things even worse, because if kernel-source-2.4.{17,19} are patched to contain the fix, it will almost certainly make these architectures' kernel images fail to build because of patch conflicts, and require that the -patch packages be updated _again_ to undo this." http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg01623.html "However, after fighting for months on an update for CAN-2004-0077 for all architectures and all kernels, it was a lot easier to provide updates for the CAN-2004-0109 vulnerability." Nope.. nope.. there aren't too many architectures! You're right. <sigh> -- Clint Byrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
