On Sat, 2018-09-29 at 17:05 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 9/29/18 8:48 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 14:16 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Furthermore, several of the ports are in very healthy condition and
> &g
nd fixed them.
[...]
So, by all means have fun working on these ports, but aside from ppc64
I don't see any prospect of them meeting release qualifications.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism. - Harrison
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 15:48 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 10/01/2016 02:17 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This isn't the case for PowerPC32 where upstream development is still very
> > > active because it's part of the PowerPC ker
which is why I hope
> we can add sparc64 as an official port soon.
[...]
Oracle cares about Solaris on SPARC, not Linux on SPARC.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Klipstein's 4th Law of Prototyping and Production:
A fail-safe circuit will destroy
others.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
don't need multiarch:
[...]
This is only the case because ppc64 has a lower level of support
(unofficial port) than powerpc (release architecture). The 64-bit
kernel package should be dropped once powerpc is at the same or lower
level of support than ppc64 - just as we've done for i386, s390 and
sparc
-supported even in wheezy. The kernel
doesn't boot on some common machines and no-one seems to be able to fix
it.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
compatible: Gracefully accepts erroneous data from any source
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:51 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
[...]
On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 18:48:20 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
4. During a kernel package installation, upgrade or removal, various
boot loader hooks may be invoked (in this order):
a. A postinst_hook or postrm_hook command set
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 14:16 +0100, Gregor Jasny wrote:
Hi,
I'm the maintainer of libv4l which passed the new queue yesterday.
Obviously the package build failed on non-Linux architectures [1]. How
do I handle this situation? Should I list all supported architectures in
the control file,
8 matches
Mail list logo
