Re: armel port status
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 03:42:59PM +0200, Martin Guy wrote:
> This trick of "quietly deciding Debian arch names in a meeting" seems
> to be becoming common practice(*) and is not to be recommended, since
> it creates an inner circle of special people and excludes anyone not
> physically present at the meeting from participating.
What a load of crap.
Quietly? The name was discussed, discussed, discussed
and discussed online for a half a year. It was becoming painfully tight
on schedule, so the name *HAD* to be decided at some point, and
Extremadura was conviniently close enough. You and everyone else
had the chance to particicipate to the discussion at mailing lists and
wiki. We failedd to make a decision online in a timely manner, so
we had to take the decision to face-to-face meeting basing on the
discussions and feedpaback earlier.
I also asked for feedback for the event's agenda on the mailing lists,
yet nobody-NOBODY objected deciding eabi port there.
> The actual letters of the name wouldn't matter, but in this case the
> "decision" has concrete technical reasons for being one of the worst.
> Users of the current old ABI "armeb" repository are to have the rug
> pulled from under them on some random date, and forced to rebuild all
> their systems totally to use a new incompatible arch of the same name
When asked, armeb porters did not feel it was an issue. Armeb is not in
official debian, much less a release architecture. Hurd port did a
incomptable ABI change while they where in Debian. If people consider
it a major problem, we can call the new arch armbe, using the same
mechanism to differentiate the linux-gnu from linux-gnueabi.
One possibility is to setup a big enough conflict in a
installed-everywhere package that stops users from upgrading
accidentally to eabi libc6.
However, the armeb *porters* themself are in the key position - after
all it's they who get the work to do.
Now, I'll answer your technical issues later in a less flamy manners
when I've cooled a bit down ;)