Proposed removal of unbuildable binaries from lucid (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LucidPlatformSupportableBinaries)

[Mario Limonciello]

Hi Steve:

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 23:49, Steve Langasek
<steve.langasek at canonical.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:33:07AM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> > hm, looks like we're stuck in a fortran transition? Anyone who'd like to
> > volunteer to find out more about that?
>
> Thanks for working on this, Stefan!
>
> > > The hurd and debtags-edit build-deps are resolved in unstable, so it
> looks
> > > like a sync / merge will take care of us.  sdlmame is not in Debian -
> does
> > > someone want to take responsibility for this package?
>
> hurd has been resolved by a package removal; debtags has been resolved by a
> QA upload + sync.
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 07:30:26AM +0200, Fabrice Coutadeur wrote:
>
> > Steve Langasek escribió:
> > > The hurd and debtags-edit build-deps are resolved in unstable, so it
> looks
> > > like a sync / merge will take care of us.  sdlmame is not in Debian -
> does
> > > someone want to take responsibility for this package?
>
> > I sponsored the 2 latest upload. I'll check with Cesare the build status
> > with a higher version of gcc.
>
> And this one appears to be in progress, so not treating it as a blocker.
>
> Seeing no other objections, the identified binaries are now being removed.
>
> Cheers,
>

I had a proposal I'd like to hear your feedback on.  What about if at the
start of when the Maverick repositories open up (and -N, -O etc), the same
thing happens?  Don't copy forward any binary packages who can't build on
the current toolchain.  This could then set precedent for not allowing
packages that can't rebuild, period.

-- 
Mario Limonciello
superm1 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20100403/888f9b51/attachment.htm