[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 08:54:17AM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> 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 was seen as an issue before. This e.g. stalled the addition of sh3/4,
AFAIK. All the current arches have been added several years ago.

> It makes much more sense to object the the mirror load of something
> like s390.

It's much more easy (policy-wise) to block new arches from entering than
dropping already released ones. I agree that amd64 should be put on
ftp.debian.org ASAP, but yelling at ftp-masters will not help.

> 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. 

AFAIK, this is being worked on and mostly done. I don't know the exact
status though.

> Technically it shouldn't be a problem - scripts have existed to create
> incomplete unofficial mirrors since the dawn of package pools.

Until now, policy was that ftp.?.debian.org mirrors must carry the whole
archive, AFAIK. We're talking about the big mirrors here, not somebody's
local APT-mirror.

> 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 agree.

> 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. 

Well, that's orthogonal. We can improve the web pages and raise
visibility (e.g. announce the availability of and amd64/d-i port on
Slashdot/Newsforge/whereever once it is ready).


Michael Banck
Debian Developer

Reply to: