Joerg Jaspert, le Mon 04 May 2015 18:11:29 +0200, a écrit :
> On 13931 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > That pad says: "As a result of current state, d-ports cannot accept more
> > ports". If that's still true, it would make sense to postpone dropping
> > hurd and sparc until this is fixed.
On 13931 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> That pad says: "As a result of current state, d-ports cannot accept more
> ports". If that's still true, it would make sense to postpone dropping
> hurd and sparc until this is fixed...
Hurd is already on d-p, so hurd actually has double infrastructure
On 04/05/15 at 18:04 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Lucas Nussbaum (2015-05-04):
> >> I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures
> >> in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and
> >> other t
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum (2015-05-04):
>> I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures
>> in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and
>> other teams. I'm not entirely clear on the status of debian-po
Lucas Nussbaum (2015-05-04):
> I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures
> in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and
> other teams. I'm not entirely clear on the status of debian-ports.org,
> and of what the current downsides of using debian
5 matches
Mail list logo
