Nathanael Nerode writes: > Nathanael Nerode writes: > > This is no way to get a bug fixed. If this is seriously the level of > > attention to mips and mipsel, Debian support for them should be dropped. > > Matthias Klose wrote: > >sorry, this attitude has nothing to do with release management, it's > >just ranting. > > >The problem is addressed, known to the right people. > Sure doesn't look like it; at the very least, there's a failure of openness > in > the processes here. This really is no way to get a bug fixed. The failure > to report the bug upstream was what really got to me. > > >Just ask if you cannot find some information. > All right. > * What's wrong with ld on mips/mipsel? > * What's the last time a gcj build was tested on mips/mipsel, what version of > ld was it tested with, and where are the results?
current gcc-4.0 and gcc-snapshot packages, using current binutils packages. > * Why isn't the problem reported upstream to binutils? I know it's not, > since > I checked. AFAIK it's not just a binutils problem. > * If it's Debian-specific, has it been tracked to a particular part of > Debian's configuration of binutils? If not, which mips porter is working on > that? it's not Debian specific. > And for pkg-java-maintainers: > * Why was kaffe deliberately broken on mips and mipsel? > * If this was being done with the intention of removing kaffe on those > architectures, why isn't there a bug against ftp.debian.org requesting the > removal of the obsolete binaries? For mipsel, at least, this is still > needed. > > -- > Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > This space intentionally left blank. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]