On Jul 15 16:12, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 7/15/2015 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jul 15 16:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> >>Dear All,
> >>I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
> >>still missing as 64 bit port.
> >>After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw ones,
> >>the duplicates we are down to ~44.
> >>
> >>Please see here the analysis :
> >>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
> >>Feel free to insert comments on the cells.
> >>
> >>For what I found :
> >>
> >>- half of them are dead upstream so we can directly
> >>obsolete and don't worry anynore.
> >>
> >>- Few are Jary's scripts, so the only porting issue is Jary's time.
> >>
> >>- Very few have real porting issue
> >>
> >>The only one really interesting for me is Mathomatic and eventually catdoc
> >>if works with latest word documents.
> >>(of course I will port pure-ftpd)
> >
> >Thanks for looking into this.
> >
> >Two points:
> >
> >- Shall we remove all 32b-bit only orphaned packages for which we don't
> >   get a maintainer until, say, end of August?
> 
> That seems reasonable, as long as there are exceptions for packages where
> the lack of a 64-bit package is due to genuine porting difficulties.
> libsigsegv was in that category until yesterday.  Another one I'm aware of
> is ffcall.

I understand, but they are unmaintained.  So, who's going to check
if they are buildable as 64 bit packages?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat