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

Re: When will amd64 join sid? [Was: Re: gcc default for amd64 (Re: Bug#250174: gcc-3.3: Miscompilation of Objective-C code on amd64.)]

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 08:11:14AM +0200, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
> Having actually sat down and discussed this with the ftpmasters, no, this
> argument isn't rubbish. Every arch/gig added is a bigger strain on mirrors
> and leads to mirrors dropping either debian or other valuable community
> resources. I'll ask around a little and see what the current consensus is
> wearing my mirror admin hat.
> It might be possible that debian-amd64 gets an exception to this, given
> that we have a well-managed port that is up to date and there is big
> public demand for it. But I wouldn't bet on 

Why was this never seen as a big issue before? It makes much more
sense to object the the mirror load of something like s390.

I think it's important to let mirrors pick their arches, but I don't
think it should be a prerequisite for adding amd64 unless someone is
actually working on it and has a reasonable target date. Technically
it shouldn't be a problem - scripts have existed to create incomplete
unofficial mirrors since the dawn of package pools. I'm betting that
the reason this hasn't happened already is that no one has designated
it a priority and thus it's holding up other things like amd64.

We are losing users over this. One of my friends reluctantly switched
to gentoo because he doesn't want to run a 32 bit OS and lose some of
the performance his brand new hardware is capable of. I told him about
pure64 but he was not interested in running an unofficial port not
carried on the mirrors. The facts that the alioth page designates the
port to be "pre-alpha" and links to no resources of any kind other
than a tree of files probably contributed. If I hadn't told him of
pure64 he wouldn't have even known it existed. The reason amd64 needs
to enter sid is so that we have something to offer users - directly
and with minimum hassle. As long as the port is hidden in an FTP
directory somewhere it's not going to get the userbase that it

Reply to: