On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 04:33:32PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:55:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 19.08.2009 13:42, Bastian Blank wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:16:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>> I did speak with Martin Zobel at Debconf on how t
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:55:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 19.08.2009 13:42, Bastian Blank wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:16:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> I did speak with Martin Zobel at Debconf on how to get there, having two
>>> proposals:
>>> - have an inplace-transit
On 19.08.2009 13:42, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:16:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
I did speak with Martin Zobel at Debconf on how to get there, having two
proposals:
- define a new sparc64 port, and bootstrap this one using the 32bit port.
This is rather easy. I alre
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:16:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I did speak with Martin Zobel at Debconf on how to get there, having two
> proposals:
> - define a new sparc64 port, and bootstrap this one using the 32bit port.
This is rather easy. I already did a s390x bootstrap using this meth
On 18.08.2009 22:43, Jurij Smakov wrote:
Hello,
I would like to point out that sparc release requalification is currently
placing it in "at risk" position for squeeze release. The most serious
problems with the port are lack of developer involvement (there is currently
one active porter/develope
5 matches
Mail list logo