On 12 September 2005 at 23:59, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
| On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 08:10:02AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > 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.
|
| I'm sorry, but at this moment I cannot remove those packages. If at some
| moment in the future one architectures is lagging behind on this
| package, and there is no porter willing to help you fix it, please
| request removal then. If this package and the packages (build-)depending
| on it don't get added to Packages-arch-specific, it has no use dropping
| the builds for those archs. I've no problem removing builds if the
| porters are not willing or able to assist in keeping your package
| uptodate on their architecture.
Please look at
http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?email=edd%40debian.org
where arm, and in particular m68k, are almost always lagging.
Which is why I opened this bug report in Jan (!!) of 2004 (!!) i.e. over 20
months ago.
Disappointed, Dirk
--
Statistics: The (futile) attempt to offer certainty about uncertainty.
-- Roger Koenker, 'Dictionary of Received Ideas of Statistics'
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
