On 31 March 2005 at 02:35, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: | tags 167780 moreinfo | thanks | | On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:25:15AM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 04:16:01PM +0000, Daniel Silverstone wrote: | > > Hi, | > > | > > Since quantlib is up to date in testing currently, do you still want | > > this package to be removed from the arm architecture? | > | > Yes.
I believe that this has happened recently (but I was gone on vacation for the last few days, so something may have changed). | > If in fact I, as maintainer, have a choice in the matter , then I would like | > to request the same for the following packages: | > | > octave2.1, quantlib, r-base | > | > for the | > | > arm, m68k | > | > architectures. I have spent *way* too much fscking special requests for | > these smaller + older architecture which are, quite simply, mismatched for | > these numerically-focussed applications and environments. | | Please convince a porter for those architectures to add the right lines How would I do that? Whenever I discuss this with people from the porting teams, their attitude usually is "why -- we may as well build it". Which is wrong, IMHO, as these arches _do_ hold up releases of these packages more often than I like. I still need help in this matter. Regards, Dirk | to Packages-arch-specific. If I'd remove those now, they'll get built | and re-uploaded immediately again, so that has no use. | | Update this bug if the changes to P-a-s are done. | | --Jeroen | | -- | Jeroen van Wolffelaar | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- Better to have an approximate answer to the right question than a precise answer to the wrong question. -- John Tukey as quoted by John Chambers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
