Re: When will amd64 be allowed in sid?
Martin Pitt <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 2004-05-06 11:49 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 10:49:43AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
>> > Since package growth is exponential, but adding a new architecture
>> > only proportional in required extra space, I don't really regard lack
>> > of mirror space as a valid argument. Or am I fundamentally wrong here?
>> Adding new architectures makes the problem worse than it already is.
> Sure, but I don't see why e. g. hppa and m68k should be worth "making
> the problem worse", but amd64 should not. I think all architectures
> are worth the effort, but if I were to choose between old
> architectures and new ones which have a much bigger market share
> potential, I'd certainly would favor the latter. Such a decision
> would surely not be easy, but just ignoring it is even worse than a
> clear commitment.
At least m68k can live with a select few mirrors while at least
ppc/i386/amd64 need a wider spread. I don't think mirror space is that
much of a problem if Debian tells some space concerned mirrors to drop
lesser used archs in an organized way (don't drop m68k everywhere,
varry the arch). [and I'm a m68k user and not just bashing our most
>> Mirror space isn't just Debian's problem. We could buy some more hard
>> disks; but that won't solve the problem, unless you suggest buying extra
>> hard disks for all Debian mirrors worldwide.
> They have to do anyway if they want to keep up with sid's exponential
> growth. And I think not every mirror is required to mirror _all_
> architectures. IMHO providing i386 and maybe powerpc is completely
> sufficient for most mirrors since all other architectures don't have a
> very big user base (compared to i386), so there is much less bandwith
> burden to share by mirrors. But this decision should be made by the
> respective mirror admins.
> Have a nice day,