On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 01:13:53AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/15/06 00:03, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > [snip] > > I think it should be in the porters control what packages to > > build for an arch with some guidelines what sort of packages can > > be removed without loosing release status. For example removing > > KDE would not be OK. Removal should be reserved for extreme cases > > though. Things that just need long to build should be put into > > weak_no_auto and limited to the stronger buildds of an arch. > > Why *shouldn't* KDE, GNOME, Firefox/Iceweasel, Tbird, and anything > that requires Mesa/OpenGL, and all of Charles Plessy's scientific > packages be marked do_not_build on 68k/Coldfire & ARM?
Because they all have many reverse dependencies. Because running (e.g.) konqueror may still be a good idea even if you don't want to run all of KDE. Because "not interested in all of this" does not necessarily mean "not interested even in part of this". > If an Amiga (using the unaccelerated fb driver?) is running as an X > Terminal for a powerful, modern box, the Amiga would need to process > the OpenGL commands, no? Sometimes. -- <Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]