On 15-02-2009, Stefano Zacchiroli <[email protected]> wrote: > > --uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:37:23PM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote: >> On 09-02-2009, St=E9phane Glondu <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Sylvain Le Gall a =E9crit : >> >> - Reintegrate missing native arch: at least ARM, maybe IA64 and alpha. >> >> Some bugs for this arches has been fixed upstream >> > Concerning arm: it will be deprecated (IIUC) in favour of armel in >> > Lenny+n (with n >=3D 1) (which currently hasn't got a native compiler, = > see >> > upstream bug #3746). ><snip> >> Anyway, if we can produce a working ocamlopt for arm, we should do it >> even if it will be deprecated in Lenny+n (remember n can be a big >> number). > > Actually, it seems that n=3D1, according to [1]. Hence, even though I > haven't checked with the release team, my guess is that 'arm' should > not be mentioned any longer in architecture lists. This is way I > haven't added this point to the 3.11 checklist [2]. > > I have the same perplexities of others about adding back IA64 and > alpha, maybe we can postpone this? > > Cheers. > > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/02/msg00003.html > [2] http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/OCamlTaskForce/OCaml311Migration >
Since this point doesn't collect the expected "yes"-vote, I agree to postpone it for later (maybe in-between 3.11.0 and 3.11.1 if possible). But I think we should keep and not just discard it, having ocamlopt on these arches remains a goal (at least on arm/armel). Regards, Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
