Re: debootstrapping m68k-coldfire
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The problem is that adding another port isn't going to be accepted by
> FTP masters: I don't recall who exactly, but an FTP master did tell me
> that a coldfire port in Debian would only be accepted if it was either
> part of the m68k port, or replaced it entirely.
>
> To me, the latter is not acceptable, so that leaves us with the former.
To me, a hybrid is not acceptable and the old should indeed gracefully bow
out and make way for the new. But, without user demand for CF, it is all
moot.
For myself, I'd switch to gentoo which doesn't have the infrastructure
overhead, and keep the old alive that way. Has anyone considered
addressing debian's infrastructure requirements? Is it not in Debian's
interest to encourage more spin-off distros?
> If we have two separate ports, then the m68k port itself will not get
> that interest from Freescale or anyone else.
How do you support that assertion?
> My main reason for asking for the ColdFire boards was so that the m68k
> port could be spared from eventual, but certain, death. By creating a
> separate ColdFire port, this goal will not be achieved.
It seems to me that if a hybrid could save our port, so can aranym (at
least until demand for CF justifies the inevitable demise of debian's old
m68k port).
-f
Reply to: