Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
In line with the subject of porting / obsolescence, I should mention
that some not terribly old UltraSPARC systems (my Ultra 10 for example)
are not even supported by Sun in Solaris 10.
If we quit supporting these, I think they will just quit working.
--- Martin <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > We project that applying these rules for etch will reduce the set
> > > candidate architectures from 11 to approximately 4 (i386,
> powerpc, ia64
> > > and amd64 -- which will be added after sarge's release when
> mirror space
> > no sparc here.
> > After speaking to Andreas Barth, asking, why sparc might become
> SCC, he
> > pointed my to the last release update where it says:
> > | It's for this reason that all architectures are
> > | required to be synced to the same kernel version for sarge, but
> even so,
> > | more per-architecture kernel help is needed, particularly for the
> > | and the arm port.
> > So we seem to have a lack of sparc kernel hackers/developers.
> > I myself are using Debian on sparc very much, but do not have the
> > knowledge with sparc kernels to help here.
> I know a little and would be willing to help if it meant that sparc
> would stay a 'first class citizen'. I don't have much time but I
> suspect that a little time given to helping Debian/SPARC would be
> than having to port everything I run to a different distro / UNIX
> to have consistancy.
> > The only thing i could do here is testing, testing, testing...
> > > - 5 developers who will use or work on the port must send in
> > > signed requests for its addition
> > >
> > > - the port must demonstrate that they have at least 50 users
> > That should be possible somehow.
> Guess so.
> Is there anyone 'in charge' of the Debian/sparc port or anyone
> co-ordinating the fight to keep Debian/sparc a live port?
> - Martin
> "Seasons change, things come to pass"
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact