On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:51, Wookey wrote:
> > Nevertheless I think it is clear that we do need mechanisms to keep
> > the load and package set appropriate for slower arches. If we design
> > the mechanism properly I would hope it could be useful for various
> > categorisation/subsetting purposes within debian.
> Isn't it up to the maintainer to say $package is not suited for
> $architecture?
> And aren't maintainers happy to receive hints (e.g. from porters or users of
> a certain package), which specific package is not suited for a specific
> architecture?
IMHO, Wookeys intention was to change the release scheme to something that
not all packages are considered as a release criteria as a whole, although
some packages can be built, but a rather useless except for academic proof
of being able to built (and catch some errors).
Excluding archs from Arch: list wasn't the intention of Wookey as I
understand him.
--
Ciao... // Fon: 0381-2744150
Ingo \X/ SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij/public_key.asc
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
