Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny
Uwe Hermann <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 04:38:04PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Do you really think this is a decision that was made lightly? 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.
> OK, not being a SPARC expert myself, I'd still like to see a list of
> issues or bugs which are worth dropping a whole sub-architecture.
> Maybe some of them don't even require a SPARC guru to fix them? Maybe
> some are "easy" enough so someone could fix them after reading some
> documentation? In that case I'm willing to have a look at them.
Regardless of the set of bugs or the difficulty of fixing them, every
architecture itself needs Debian porters and upstream support to meet
Debian release policy.
I'm not saying that sparc32 can't meet policy; I'm merely saying that
such a judgement is unaffected by discussions about the tractability
of the existing bugs.
> Well, I just saw three or more sparc32 patches being committed to
> Linus' git tree today or yesterday, so that may not be quite
The kernel is but one program in Debian.
\ "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "Umm, I think |
`\ so, Brain, but three men in a tub? Ooh, that's unsanitary!" -- |
_o__) _Pinky and The Brain_ |