Re: why is amd64 still separate?
Adam Stiles <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tuesday 06 December 2005 13:15, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Matthias Julius <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> writes:
>> >> It's deemed necessary to split the archive into popular/less-popular
>> >> architectures before any more can be added -- not just amd64. The
>> >> current single archive is too big for mirrors. That work is in progress.
>> > I don't understand the problem there. Each mirror already can decide
>> > which architectures to mirror.
>> > Matthias
>> The first argument is: All primary mirrors must have all archs.
>> The second: Excluding archs is to hard for mirror admins, they will
>> drop debian complety instead of excluding archs.
>> Both arguments I can't agree with and some primary mirrors already
>> droped archs. But that were the reasons given.
> I can see real benefits in the idea of supporting many architectures, but of
> course this means more to look after. Problems with a package on one
> architecture can hold up its release in other architectures. It's all rather
> like cooking a big meal: the more items you have on the stove, the harder it
> gets to time everything so it all comes ready at once.
Which is completly irelevant to the topic.