On 7/21/07 1:45 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> So, why is mc68k a supported platform if major parts are excluded? What
> you just wrote is quite different from "it doesn't work". Just because
> KDE/Gnome/Firefox might not make sense to use doesn't mean they should
> be ignored "'cause I don't care". Someone else might. Having him wait a
> week to find out trivial errors is not that friendly either. Sure that
> can happen with bulk builds as well. BUT WE AT LEAST TRIED.

What I was really trying to say is that there are no bulk builds for
NetBSD/mac68k (at least not in recent years).  Given the low resources of that
platform, this is not a big surprise.  Nevertheless (and speaking only for
myself here), the packages that I want/need for mac68k build fine, even if
it's a slow process.  I consider that to be "supported" even though there are
no bulk builds for that platform.... which is the real point I'm trying to make.

You want "supported platform" to be equated with "regular bulk builds".  The
point I was trying to make is boils down to the question "what about platforms
where there are no bulk builds but things seem to work fine for folks using
the platform (mac68k as an example)?"

> 
> Besides, a combination of pbulk and distcc with a number of mac68k nodes
> a modern PC as build backend should be able to get the build done in a
> reasonable time frame. This makes this argument even less compelling to
> me.

But who is doing this for mac68k (and other low-resource platforms)?  I don't
have the time or other resources available to do it myself.  And since I'm not
a developer, the results of any builds I do are not accepted into the
repository, anyway.

Mark