Hi, Frans Pop <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > The problem is, and that has been mentioned before, that *there is no > upstream maintainer* for sparc32. Unless some people step up and ensure > that upstream issues _are_ fixed in a timely manner, sparc32 is > effectively dead. "Upstream" should really read "kernel", right? > Kernel development moves too fast for that. Or does it wander too fast? ;-) Thanks, Ludovic.