Re: What demotivates debian-arm? [Was: Re: Bug#425011: gcc-4.1: FTBFS on m68k and arm, multiple definitions of ffi_prep_closure]
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 02:12:31PM +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:08:02PM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> > Can you define the characteristics of an architecture that isn't
> > in "good shape"?
> How about this one:
> "An architecture is said to be 'not in good shape' at a
> certain point in time if there has been regular talk about
> dropping that architecture for several years up to that
That's not the right definition. There was a quite elaborate discussion
about what makes an architecture 'in good shape' and what does not a few
years back, and that's what's used. The fact that Matthias Klose likes
to beat people with "it seems to me that your arch isn't supported,
maybe we should drop it" doesn't change that -- he doesn't have the
authority to drop ports, anyway.
FWIW, last I checked arm wasn't in the "going to get dropped" category.
Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will
want to use it.