On Tue Oct 28, 2025 at 3:03 PM CET, Marc Haber wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 03:00:24PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote: >>On Tue Oct 28, 2025 at 10:07 AM CET, Marc Haber wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 09:59:11AM +0100, Romain Dolbeau wrote: >>>> Planned obsolescence is bad, not good. >>> >>> Still, Debian has to rely on stable support in kernel and toolchain. >>> Once kernel and toolchain stop supporting¹ an architecture there is >>> nothing that Debian could do about that with its limited personpower and >>> resources. >> >>The kernel and/or toolchain dropping support is a valid argument IMO. >>Dropping support because 7/8/10/15 years have passed is not. >>Some 'random' other distro dropping support is (IMO) not a valid >>argument in itself. Maybe their reasons behind dropping it, is. > > The problem is that Bastian has a point here in wanting to announce that > YEARS in advance, but toolchain/kernel usually having a much shorter > horzion. So, when we want to guess what they're going to do we have to > be really careful and err to the conservative side. I think announcing at the beginning of a new release cycle that release X (in this case Forky) will be the last that architecture X will be supported, is great. Then people who are interested/invested in it have ~2 years to prepare for it. When it comes to kernel support, I'm quite sure Arnd Bergmann announces dropping support for (device) X *years* in advance, so that does NOT happen overnight. (With their spring/autumn announcement/summary IIRC) As said before, I think those are substantive arguments. My problem is that I have mostly seen imaginary or theoretical arguments. I would be fine with an argument where I think "that makes sense" (even though I may not be happy about it). Just arbitrary amount of years have passed or "people should not be using that anymore". To which my response is: "Why not? If it still works?" Cheers, Diederik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature