Hi Didier! On Mon, 18 May 2009 13:09:34 +0200, Didier Raboud wrote: > Luca Capello wrote: >> And then I forgot that there was another question (I promise, the last >> one!): should we build it only for armel? AFAIK it is used no where >> else but the FR, thus I do not see the point in providing binary >> packages for other architecture. However, it compiles perfectly on >> amd64 ;-) [...] > I see absolutely no reason not to compile those packages on all arches > Debian provides. The only reason I might see is to spare buildd time. > > Providing packages on all possible arches is a clear bonus for code quality > and portability. ;)
While this is true, it could generates various FTBFS bugs because of missing features/options. Another point against portability is that if the Glamo chipset needs an ARM SoC to work, then the X.Org driver itself is useless on anything bug armel. This is what I have understood (as a profane) from: http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Smedia_Glamo_3362 Anyway, your reply arrived a bit too late: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-fso/xf86-video-glamo.git;a=commitdiff;h=993fcc586722383139a6d24e635f84ca2ccb78fa I will be glad to revert the above commit if more complaints arrive before the package is uploaded to NEW :-) Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
pgp76pqH3lEk8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-fso-maint mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-fso-maint
