On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 06:47:23PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:05:59AM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > Alessandro Ghedini <[email protected]> writes: > > > could you please remove valgrind from armel? It used to build there with a > > > somewhat ugly hack (valgrind doesn't support armel baseline > > > architecture), but > > > it stopped doing so a couple months ago, and there doesn't seem to be much > > > interest in armel valgrind from arm porters (nor from me FWIW). Also see > > > #720409. > > > > There are still quite a lot of packages build-depending on valgrind: > > I wonder if we could go ahead with this. Right now the only packages build > depending on valgrind on armel are jq (removed from testing) and abiword > (fixed > in experimental). What do you think?
Ping?
AFAICT a fixed version of abiword has been uploaded to unstable as well, so the
only blocker is now jq, which doesn't seem to be maintained (and is not in
testing anymore). Time permitting I might be able to NMU it, but I wouldn't hold
my breath if I were you.
Cheers
--
perl -E '$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;<inidehG ordnasselA>;eg;say~~reverse'
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
