On Apr 06, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote: >> aj announced on the d-i list that he wants to do a sarge preview by >the >> end of the month, but with so many packages broken I really wonder if >> it's still appropriate to consider m68k in a releasable state, >Currently? No. But does that matter? We're not even close to releasing: If we want to produce a prerelease suitable for users testing by the end of the month than we are definitely close enough that remote exploits and major release upgrades in critical packages do matter. >> given the >> damage to other architectures. >What damage exactly are you referring to? Let me spell it out for you It's very simple: is keeping important packages like mutt and perl outside of testing for weeks a problem? [ ] YES [ ] NO >Problems such as the one m68k is suffering from now can happen to _any_ >architecture, and in fact, have happened to other architectures before. >We've had some hardware problems during the last week; as a result, half During the last months, I'd say judging from what I did read here, on the debian-glibc list and on IRC... >of our autobuilder capacity had been out. The resulting backlog has now >almost been cleared... So I should expect all the problems I reported to be fixed in a few days? A few weeks? A few months? >Yes, there have been problems with our toolchain. Does that mean we're >suddenly showing the world that we can't keep up, and that we should be >dropped? If someday there are problems with the s390 toolchain, will >you get up and scream that we should stop support s390, because >"nobody's using s390 anyway"[1]? Sure. But please note that I did not ask to "stop supporting" any architecture, only to remove it from the set of architectures used for testing until it will be fit again. >m68k is also 'actually' used by people; if not, we wouldn't be here. Reality is that usually m68k machines are not much more than a toy, and who has one keeps it running for hack value since even old x86 or PPC hardware is way faster. >> (Please do not suggest "fix these bugs yourself". I looked at my own >> package and determined that the bug is not my fault, I have no time to >> dedicate to a doorstop architecture.) >If you want us not to have bad feelings about anything, I'd suggest you >keep the insults for yourself. There is no insult there, it's a strictly technical opinion. -- ciao, | Marco | [274 ra3kfwbpoCAlI]
Attachment:
pgpQvVmR_q3la.pgp
Description: PGP signature