On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:43:19PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > 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.
Just FYI, jq has been NMUed as well (not by me). Sooo, can we go ahead pretty
please?
Cheers
--
perl -E '$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;<inidehG ordnasselA>;eg;say~~reverse'
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
