On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:45:00AM +0000, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > On Máirt, 2005-03-22 at 00:11 +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > > > If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new, I > > > certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that arch, > > > however. So I'd say Matthew's explanation is not perfect. But the > > > reasoning behind it is not difficult to spot. > > > > > > Throwing out this requirement makes sense, if and only if there is another > > > way to get sure a released arch will not be left stranded. So, let's work > > > on these alternate ways, so that this rule can be removed. > > > > > > > It's not because you can't buy a new machine, the arch suddenly stops > > being useful. > > > I think the point of this requirement is to support it we need buildds > in the future for security fixes. Hence while I might like my mips box, > etc. it would be irresponsible for us to do a release that we could not > support in e.g. two years time when the motherboards of our buildds die. > The arch should still be available, but a big enough collection of existing machines will do here IMO. Not that this holds for mips as there are new MIPS based systems available. Both broadcom and PMC announced new MIPS based chips for example. And there is AMD (Alchemy) and a bunch of others using MIPS as well. Cheers, Peter (p2).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature