On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:38:01PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote: > Sven Luther a écrit : > > - Not having slower arches hold up testing. > Slower arches don't hold up testing. Arches with buildd not well managed do.
Ok, drop this argument, but what do you think of the rest of the proposal ? > If you look at the current needs-build graph [1], m68k the slowest arch > we support is going pretty well. On the other hand s390 (which is not a > slow architectures), have the largest packages waiting to build. > > Another example, I have uploaded lineakd yesterday, it is already built > on all arches, except arm and ia64 [2]. In that case, I consider ia64 as > a slow arch. And arm as a badly buildd-maintained one ? :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
