Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
> > The point is that m68k gets kicked out _before_ any alternative has
> > been implemented. _Any_ m68k work has been in vain from the very
> > beginning and the question is now only how some of it can be
> > salvaged...
> Come on. This attitude is not going to lead anywhere.
> I can understand you are disappointed, but please try to be constructive
> and help create the best support for m68k possible given the decision
> that was made and work to get m68k to be a fully supported arch again for
If the decision has already been made, does my attitude really matter?
I'm only trying to be realistic and based on the current situation, m68k
is unlikely to ever get its release status back, so I'm seriously asking
myself why I should even bother.
> It is a fact that some arches, but especially m68k and m68k most
> constantly and structurally, have caused loads of extra work for RMs, FTP
> masters, security team, etc, for a large part because it is slow when
> compared with others. This has delayed important migrations, security
> updates, etc.
We had indeed problems during development, but isn't the purpose of a
development stage to find and fix such issues? I really don't understand
that now at the end of the development stage there is absolutely no
intention to even look at the current situation and figure out what would
be needed for proper m68k release. Instead there is only hiding behind
release criteria and anonymous decisions.
> > You are practically declaring that Debian is now a Desktop only
> > distribution which will only support GHz machines.
> The fact that m68k is the only arch that was eventually not considered to
> be release quality makes this untrue.
Actuallly arm is considered as well (at least it was threatened in one of
the announcements) and strictly speaking arm doesn't meet the release