On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:30:20 +1100, Hamish Moffatt writes: >On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:06:18PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote: >> * Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> [2005-03-14 23:00]: >> > But really, is there much benefit in making *releases* for the SCC >> > architectures? >> >> For some SSC arches, it *might* not make a difference (possibly m68k) >> but others (e.g. s390 and mipsel) are typically used for servers >> or gateways, and you don't really want to run unstable in such >> environments. testing+security updates might be a compromise, but >> unstable is clearly not an option for a S390 box or a mipsel Cobalt >> gateway. > >OK, that makes sense. Can you buy those architectures new? (Surely yes >in the case of s390 at least, probably mipsel also as the mips CPU >manufacturers are alive and well.) Why should we start following some greedy manufacturers' EOL decisions? How and why does X being sold affect the lack of manufacturer support (that's available without signing an NDA and thus is of interest to us)? All the other criteria I can understand (not that I agree with them fully), but that one just stinks. We claim to be community-driven, so we should act that way. The manufacturers' sale spiel should in no way affect us. az -- + Alexander Zangerl + DSA 42BD645D + (RSA 5B586291) About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt ax. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Dijkstra
Attachment:
pgpTrEgLaBJGp.pgp
Description: PGP signature