Re: Usage of real m68k hardware
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:19:52 +0200
- From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Usage of real m68k hardware
On 28/03/18 12:00, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi John,
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:36:16PM +0900, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> Yes, of course. But Andreas hit a nerve with this on me.
> Sorry, this was not intended.
>>> In my experience, most arguments (not "mere" disagreements) have stemmed
>>> from regrettable miscommunication but all of them have ever helped by an
>>> argumentative or combative character, especially ones underlined with
>> Well, if Andreas wouldn't have asked for the ultima ratio right from
>> the beginning, there would probably have been a more constructive
> Just to not make that mistake again: Is it the
> "I'm wondering when it might be time to fully drop a hardware
> port instead of draining developer time for ethernity"
> in my mail you stumbled upon. May be its the language barrier but I do
> not think that if a random developer is wondering about something this
> is equivalent to "asking for the ultima ratio". I was honestly thinking
> about whether we are keeping alive an architecture by everybody using
> emulators. I try to be more careful in my wording in the future when
> asking questions about ports (and hope I will manage).
Note that m68k is not a release architecture, so those bugs do not affect the
release status of your packages. Thus, if you don't have the time to work on
such issues, you should feel free to note that and tag the bug 'help' or
similar, and wait for someone to provide a sensible patch.
OTOH, I'm not sure if those FTBFS for non-release architectures, without a patch
or a clue, coming from a non-porter, are that useful...