Re: testing and no release schedule
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 04:22:51PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > At the same time, we *have* to have a working installer; anything else
> > is just not an option. To some extent, the exact details of what version
> > of everything else we release with is a distraction, and is certainly
> > much more easily solved. (Not meaning to demean anyone's efforts, of
> > course, but I think it's clear that "our installer doesn't work yet"
> > usually overrides "we don't have a new enough version of <foo>".)
>
> It works quite well now on i386, ia64, and alpha, and to some extent on some
> of the other architectures (powerpc, sparc, m68k).
>
> Is it time to drop some architectures and/or subarchitectures? :-P For
> instance, powerpc-oldworld appears to be a PITA to support, and
> powerpc-apus likewise.
We just got a new developer who's working on oldworld. Not sure about
apus, although I think Sven's handling that.
> Some ARM subarchitectures don't even have a kernel yet,
That's OK - I believe there are something like 70 ARM subarchitectures.
Lots of them are pretty minority interests, and we don't have to support
all of them.
In general dropping subarchitectures is fairly easy, and can be decided
quickly enough based on what works when everything else is ready. We
need to be in a position where popular architectures like powerpc don't
turn out to be broken like it did for beta3, though.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: