Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Ingo Juergensmann <ij@2006.bluespice.org> writes:

> Yes, this is irrelevant for this thread as the topic of this thread is "m68k
> not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?" and not
> "Thomas Bushnell would like to see his packages being built on m68k". Maybe
> that's disappointing for you know, but I'm more interested in the big
> picture of getting m68k released with Etch. 

I don't care either way whether m68k is released in etch.  But I do
care that etch isn't screwed because of a desperate attempt to support
m68k in it.

m68k does not keep up.  It doesn't.  Eventually it will be impossible
for it to keep up, no matter how many Amigas people still have.

My packages are not unique.  The accusation was that it is developers
at large who are to blame for m68k not keeping up, because patches
languish and don't get uploaded.  (Never mind that porters can NMU the
packages.)  I was pointing out that, in the cases I know of, it has
*not* been slow developers that were the problem.

The reason that m68k is not keeping up is *not* that developers at
large are uncooperative, and I was bothered greatly (and still am) by
the suggestion that it's everyone else's job and problem to support
m68k, while the actual porting team manifestly does not have the
personnel or the time to do the job.

Thomas