Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny
Turbo Fredriksson dijo [Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:07:01AM +0200]:
> Frans> Debian cannot afford to have a broken kernel for a release
> Frans> subarch for that period of time. Kernel development moves
> Frans> too fast for that.
> Do we really NEED (read: _require_) the 'latest and greatest' (or whatever
> kernel is 'latest and greatest' at freeze (or whenever the release team
> decides to choose which kernel to release with)!?!?!?
Umh... As the kernel development/release scheme has changed from
long-lived stable releases to small, incremental releases with both
bugfixes and main development, yes, I think we require the latest and
greatest kernel available at any given moment for our releases -
Important features are added at every release, and we _do_ need our
users to be able to install on the current systems at release time.
Besides, the kernel team spent quite a lot of effort into integrating
the kernel in such a way we don't have to support as many different
kernel flavors/versions as we did in the past. This is automatically
translated into stabler and more predictable kernel package updates in
> Also have a bunch of SPARC32's running, and I'd like to continue to run
> Debian GNU/Linux on it (read: a reasonable late release - I don't want to
> keep running sarge "for the remainder of it's life" - I have no time or
> resources to keep compiling the whole dist myself).
...Do you have the technical skills to step up and become a sparc32
porter? If so, you can keep the subarch alive. I also hate to see
Debian losing support for a whole and once very popular class of
hardware, but the fact is... With nobody doing this work, there is not
much way to keep it alive.
Gunnar Wolf - email@example.com - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF