Re: debian/m68k's future
Hi All,
> > Option 2: lenny-lite
> > Build lenny with base, build-essential, and buildd-required
> > packages. I can probably do this one myself if there's
> > interest. I'll probably include anything required for d-i
> > too.
> >
>
> Probably the sanest option, most of the base packages should simply
> build and allow a successful debootstrapping.
Best option to get off etch in the short term, yes.
> > Option 3: lenny
> > Go ahead and try to do a lenny release. I think we have
> > nearly all the binary packages, but how to shove them into
> > an archive intelligently? I'm willing to help if anyone
> > knows how and can direct or is otherwise willing to lead.
If someone can give specific guidance, I'd be willing to help as well, but I
will not have the resources to figure it all out from the source.
> >
>
> Binary packages: Yes
> Matching versions: Not really
So that would make it lenny-m68k, then.
> I'd love to see a m68k lenny release however ...
Seconded.
> > Option 4: throw in the towel
> > Say it's time to retire m68k on debian. We have an ancient
> > glibc with borked threads. gcc-4.3 is fairly broken. A
> > number of packages need some bugs fixed, others need some
> > porting. Not so many helpers these days. Funny thing is with
> > aranym we have plenty of horsepower (although we need to fix
> > the fpu emulation) and with d-ports our buildds won't get
> > locked out of wanna-build. Kernel's probably in the best
> > shape it's been in a long time.
Well, the kernel could use some attention as far as drivers are concerned (SCSI
comes to mind). I'll deal with Atari issues anyway, and I'd give the Debian
kernel source patches a shot now that Geert has given us the proper base for
that.
On the porting, toolchain and buildd front I've been largely silent in the last
months - unfortunately, that won't change in the forseeable future.
Helpers in those areas don't need to be Debian developers after our move to
ports?
Michael
Reply to: