Nathanael Nerode writes: > This is no way to get a bug fixed. If this is seriously the level of > attention to mips and mipsel, Debian support for them should be dropped.
Matthias Klose wrote: >sorry, this attitude has nothing to do with release management, it's >just ranting. >The problem is addressed, known to the right people. Sure doesn't look like it; at the very least, there's a failure of openness in the processes here. This really is no way to get a bug fixed. The failure to report the bug upstream was what really got to me. >Just ask if you cannot find some information. All right. * What's wrong with ld on mips/mipsel? * What's the last time a gcj build was tested on mips/mipsel, what version of ld was it tested with, and where are the results? * Why isn't the problem reported upstream to binutils? I know it's not, since I checked. * If it's Debian-specific, has it been tracked to a particular part of Debian's configuration of binutils? If not, which mips porter is working on that? And for pkg-java-maintainers: * Why was kaffe deliberately broken on mips and mipsel? * If this was being done with the intention of removing kaffe on those architectures, why isn't there a bug against ftp.debian.org requesting the removal of the obsolete binaries? For mipsel, at least, this is still needed. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This space intentionally left blank. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]