On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:25:04PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> [snip]
> > But that's OK. Our amd64 users just use the Alioth site instead of our
> > wonderful mirror network, and track it as unstable. I mean, it's so much
> > more effective to have it all hitting alioth for download, right? Thought
> > so.
>
> You probably should inform yourself before talking. The amd64 port has
> also a sarge distribution, and alioth isn't the only site carrying it.
Wonderful way to miss the point - which is that we aren't using the actual,
existing infrastructure that exists for these things, but rather, cobbling
together a kludge that may, or may not, work in the long term, certainly
takes more resources than it otherwise would (which is to say, a few
incremental resources time/developer-wise, and one arch worth of space
mirror-wise, which is the kicker), and is just, in general, a big middle
finger to anyone needing current top-end hardware.
I mean, it's one thing to say "You know, the not-expected-to-be-large
number of users for a NetBSD port just doesn't warrant a lot of time
invested right this second for making it possible". I agree with that. But
failing to support the only arch big enough to actually cause the other
distributions, who are mostly infamous for NOT supporting architectures,
bother? It just makes us look like idiots.
I think the lesser-known architectures are great, and there isn't one of
them I'd want to see dropped unless folks simply stop working on them, but
if you put on the table in front of me "We have room for 11 architectures,
and no more. If you want amd64 in, one of them has to go", I'm not going
to flinch much at dropping one of the ones at the low end of the spectrum
until post-sarge.
However, it's not my choice to make, so we'll just stumble along, continue
to duplicate effort and waste resources, and look like idiots, because the
second-or-third-most-used arch out of 12 releaseable ones (that got that
way in, what, well under a year?), depending on how you count it, isn't
even an official one.
--
Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature