> > Why not put it into the powerpc-utils package then? As far as I
>
> Because Michael Schmitz thinks it is a bad idea, and doesn't really believe in
> group maintenance ?
Sven, I've largely kept silent at your innuendo, but I think it's time to
speak plainly again.
This is nothing about me not believing in team management. You asked about
integration of _all_ of ibm powerpc-utils into Debian's powerpc-utils. In
my opinion, this would introduce a binary we're not sure works on oldworld
machines (nvram) and which is meant to replace nvsetenv. I think further
testing on oldworld is required to do this.
I had also had qualms about the license on the IBM source, but you
succesfully convinced me that this isn't a problem. I had no objections to
integrating ofpathname in powerpc-utils (in fact, I suggested we might do
that).
Do you mean to say that the only problem here is my refusal of team
management, so you couldn't just overrule me?
> > understood from the discussion, ofpathname is not specific to IBM
> > powerpc machines. It should work on every OpenFirmware based powerpc
> > (including macs), correct?
>
> It may be a bit more buggy on powermacs than on true CHRP boxes, and there are
> some issues yet, which it would be good to fix ASAP. There are three packages
> indeed, the powerpc-utils, the powerpc-utils-papr (ibm 64bit specific) and the
> librtas one. only the first has any chance to work on powermacs.
>
> But indeed, my original proposal was to include all those packages in the same
> powerpc-utils source package, with some binary packages, but neither Aurelien
> nor Michael where trilled over it.
So you suggest including something that might be more buggy on powermacs,
and needs testing and fixing? Seems to support my reservations nicely.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
