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

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

Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:

> If you have no fucking clue as to what the current state of things is
> and why the architecture has been thrown out, I suggest you keep your
> petty comments to yourself.
> * Etch isn't screwed because of a desperate attempt to support m68k in
>   it, never has been, and never will be. In fact, m68k is screwed
>   (partially) because of a (desperate or not) attempt to preserve etch.

There are four packages of importance to me whose upgrades would be
excluded from etch if working on m68k was a release criterion.  There
are hundreds more in the same position.

It was said by Roman that the Release Team's decision would be a
disaster for m68k, because the architecture depends on forcing
developers to comply with patches, and said that the main problem is
that developers don't upload them.  (Never mind that the porting team
can NMU them directly in such cases.)

But in fact, this is *NOT TRUE*.  The problem is that there is a lot
of work, and it will be steadily more and more, and eventually it will
swamp anyone's ability to keep up with it.

m68k's buildd situation is a disaster and has been for a year.  There
are ways of making it keep up in theory, but they have not been
implemented, and it would be a ludicrous mistake to force the entire
project to wait while it takes months to build even a package as
simple as ifhp.

Thomas