Re: why is amd64 still separate?

[Adam Stiles <adam@priceengines.co.uk>]

On Tuesday 06 December 2005 13:15, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Matthias Julius <lists@julius-net.net> writes:
> > Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> 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.
>
> MfG
>         Goswin

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.  

I believe there is a place for a distribution which supports just the most 
popular architectures -- 80686, AMD64 and PowerPC perhaps -- with regular 
releases; alongside a distribution which supports the "minority" 
architectures and is more meticulously checked to be sure it runs well on on 
all of them, even to the extent of holding up a release while issues are 
settled.

Except that the first I described sounds an awful lot like Ubuntu .....

-- 
AJS