On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Konstantinos Margaritis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Heh, I read that mail before but I forgot to reply. :) > Basically, there is no > such record. Porting involved lots and lots of hacks, porting debian to a new > architecture is certainly not straightforward or "friendly" process, it > requires too many failed attempts -build a package with those flags, then it > fails, then you rebuild it again, ahh f***, f***, f*** and f***-it some more. that's *exactly* the information which needed to be recorded, and placed into an automated system. so the opportunity has been completely lost, already. months of work down the toilet, so that the next person who wants to do an architecture port has to, once again, spend months of their time repeating the process. again, the chances are that, because no automated system has been created, no automated system will be used. and once again, they will use a manual hack-it-and-forget-it approach, making the _next_ person's job just as equally difficult. > OTOH, it's quite easy to see the diffs for most failed-on-armhf packages if > you check the TODO wiki page, and/or the usertagged 'armhf' bugs on the Debian > BTS. ok, so let me check: are you saying that at least the required information can be derived? that it *hasn't* been lost; that you encoded the required information into the packages? i'm not sure what you're saying, here. l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
