On 2013-10-29 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
Niels Thykier writes (Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)):
[...]
As mentioned we are debating whether the 5 DDs requirement still makes
sense. Would you say that we should abolish the requirement for DD
porters completely? I.e. Even
Niels Thykier dixit:
Then there are more concrete things like ruby's test suite seg. faulting
on ia64 (#593141), ld seg. faulting with --as-needed on ia64
And only statically linked klibc-compiled executables work on IA64,
not dynamically linked ones. I’ve looked into it, but Itanic is so
On 2013-11-03 15:49, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Niels Thykier dixit:
[...]
Until we have a clear definition of actively maintained ports, I would
recommend porters to err on the side of being verbose over being silent.
I’ve held off on the m68k side because I think the role call was only
for
On 2013-11-03 16:54, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2013-11-03 15:49, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Niels Thykier dixit:
[...]
Until we have a clear definition of actively maintained ports, I would
recommend porters to err on the side of being verbose over being silent.
I’ve held off on the
Note: adding back debian-arm@..., please tell me if it's not necessary.
On Saturday 02 November 2013 23:25:57 peter green wrote:
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
Any feedback will be kindly appreciated.
I've always thought there is something fundamentally wrong.
What is qreal
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 11:54:34AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2013-10-29 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
Niels Thykier writes (Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze
info)):
[...]
As mentioned we are debating whether the 5 DDs requirement still makes
sense. Would you say that we
6 matches
Mail list logo
