[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Preparing the m68k port for the future.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > Given m68k's dropped back below the 95% cutoff (and has spent about
> > > > 1/3rd of the last 90 days beneath it) and has a number of red squares
> > > > still on the release arch qualification page it seems certain at this
> > > > point that you won't get a "release arch" exception any time soon.
> > > That's being worked on.
> > That's fine, but it's irrelevant 
> I beg to differ.

Huh? You can differ all you like, but that doesn't make it any more

> > -- you need to be able to demonstrate you can keep up consistently for
> > at least a three month period; at the moment you seem to be at least
> > four months away from that, given how long it seems to take m68k to
> > catch back up.
> I can't make time go faster. 

No, you can't. But in the meantime you need to demonstrate that m68k is
actually worth keeping in the archive, otherwise it'll be replaced by
amd64 which has qualified as a release candidate, and kfreebsd-i386 and
any other architectures which are able to demonstrate their usefulness.

I mean, come on, surely you can demonstrate you're more useful than
Hurd and GNU/kfreebsd. Hurd hasn't even been able to compile vim for a
year! These aren't exactly high bars...

> > But it does mean you've got no chance of a release requalification
> > anytime soon, which means you need to be proactive about getting an
> > archive qualification done.
> The point of my previous mail was to demonstrate that I am, in fact,
> trying to be proactive about getting the qualification done.

The way you demonstrate a commitment to getting archive qualification done
is filling out a page on the wiki like:


> Of course, we all have real life that does get in the way from time to
> time. Don't you?

According to the release qualification page for m68k there are four
other m68k port maintainers who could also be doing this.

The fact you don't have anyone able to make a working cross-compiler
speaks somewhat poorly of the support available for the m68k toolchain,


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: