On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 20:09 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Steve McIntyre <st...@einval.com> wrote: >> > Both armel and armhf are doing well, covering ~96% of the archive. We > [...] >> (*1) and if someone _really_ wants a debug build of that particular >> problematic package, on a build and distro port that's still >> experimental, well, surely they can compile it themselves, using their >> own resources, yes? > > Neither wheezy nor the armhf port contained in it are experimental. If > that's not what you meant, please be clearer.
yes i used the wrong word: apologies. i was trying to convey the following in a concise way, and chose the word "experimental", which i realise in hindsight doesn't cover half of it: "doesn't yet have as many users as e.g. i386/amd64, hasn't been around as long as i386/amd64, hasn't got hardware that the average user can buy at a spec approaching that of i386/amd64 yet, and doesn't have as many packages successfully and reliably building as i386/amd64". btw continuing on the thread on debian-arm (only) i put forward a [temporary!] procedure for review which is an interactive balancing act to relieve the burden of having excessive linker-related loads, moving it down instead to later inconvenience for users. of course, if the package is "perfect" and there *aren't* any bugreports then the interim proposed procedure has done its job. http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2012/07/msg00073.html l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAPweEDxPpxZsPjHf7R=nzem5jibfa1snjsve5hk-b167xqu...@mail.gmail.com