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?
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
massi
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 wa
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.
>> >
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 q
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
6 matches
Mail list logo