Svante Signell, le Fri 05 Jul 2013 15:37:55 +0200, a écrit : > On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 12:33 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Svante Signell, le Fri 05 Jul 2013 12:09:43 +0200, a écrit : > > > On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 11:39 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > Thanks for the reminder, even if I had already taken care of checking > > > > those recently :) > > > > > > > > Ansgar Burchardt, le Fri 05 Jul 2013 11:15:23 +0200, a écrit : > > > > > unstable | atlas | 3.8.3-29 > > > > > > > > There's apparently a computation difference here. The version currently > > > > in experimental does build fine, however. > > > > > > I think the current version in unstable is 3.8.4-9.1, not 3.8.3-29? > > > > That's precisely his point: hurd-i386 is out of date. > > > > > There was a patch sent to debian-hurd for review in September 2012. > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2012/09/msg00009.html > > > > > > The second part of that patch still applies. (And would add GNU as a > > > unique architecture for the experimental version too) > > I can limit the patch to make 3.8.4-9.1 build without introducing a GNU > architecture. However, maybe this is not necessary, since the > experimental version would reasonably move to unstable soon.
That is what I meant. > > Well, since the Linux port seems to be working in experimental, I'd > > rather not introduce a GNU variant, which would inevitably lay back > > within some time. > > Why would it lay back in time if adopted upstream? Because we have seen that happen in various upstream projects. See xosview for instance: there was zero porting needed actually. Just making trivial Makefile changes exactly like for other OSes... Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130705134601.gb6...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr