Re: How should we deal with 'pointless-on-this-arch' packages?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/06 02:33, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>
>> On 10/15/06 00:03, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@connexer.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> I think it should be in the porters control what packages to
>>> build for an arch with some guidelines what sort of packages can
>>> be removed without loosing release status. For example removing
>>> KDE would not be OK. Removal should be reserved for extreme cases
>>> though. Things that just need long to build should be put into
>>> weak_no_auto and limited to the stronger buildds of an arch.
>> Why *shouldn't* KDE, GNOME, Firefox/Iceweasel, Tbird, and anything
>> that requires Mesa/OpenGL, and all of Charles Plessy's scientific
>> packages be marked do_not_build on 68k/Coldfire & ARM?
>
> Because it is perfectly fine to run kde on such a system. Anything
> that can run gnome can run kde. Anything that can run X can run kde I
> would even say. Kicking one alternative for something (like kde) but
> not others (like gnome) should not be allowed.
But I *am* saying that porters/maintainers should think about
dropping all the heavy CPU- & RAM-using packages.
Including GNOME.
> If the port decides
> that they don't need any X, e.g. there is no hardware capable of
> running X applications, then they could remove all X stuff as a
> whole. That would be different from removing kde.
>
> But I feel that X, Gnome, KDE is a big part of what makes Debian what
> it is. If you remove all that is it still Debian?
Am I not running Debian if I only have a minimal system installed?
Of course I am.
XFce, fvwm, BlackBox, AfterStep, WindowManager(?) and jwm would all
still let you have a nice low-power system.
[snip]
>> If an Amiga (using the unaccelerated fb driver?) is running as an X
>> Terminal for a powerful, modern box, the Amiga would need to process
>> the OpenGL commands, no?
>
> There are no amigas with unaccelerated FB driver I believe, which does
> not mean the FB is all that fast though. There are also crads with 3D
> hardware and even cards allowing to use PCI graphic cards,
> theoretically. But I don't think there is anything actually supported
> and in use capable of realtime 3D gaming. Would a Virge 3D card even
> be good enough to play Tuxracer? Anything that needs realtime GL is
> probably useless for m68k.
>
> So even if you could get hardware GL working remotely m68k just
> couldn't do it I think.
Then why build Mesa/GL packages for 68k and ARM and (probably?) MIPS?
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFMe5ES9HxQb37XmcRAvYsAJ0UPR+wq0jM0wAQE/CsobceZJrRbACdFs1l
lr0AF+T7XgjgLezqpLfdgVU=
=jq2f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: