On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:57:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 22:25 -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:11AM +0000, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > [snip] > > Oops. You jumped from "second most common" to "second most important", > > as if they're synonymous. Maybe they are to some people, but that's not > > at all beyond debate: AMD64 will probably be supported by all serious > > distributions, while Debian is, from what I recall, the *only* way to > > get a sensible Unix installation on many of the less common systems. > > NetBSD? Debian + NetBSD! Okay, so Nienna is going to be lucky to be a candidate for etch, even at the current release rate; there's simply a huge amount of work to do and much of it is still "core" work that isn't easy for Joe Random Developer to do. But it was too good a shot to pass up. :) Seriously, though: anyone who argues that keeping amd64 out while keeping some of our architectures with pitiable download/popcon stats in, when an arch-for-arch swap would prevent mirror growth, is utterly missing the point of the question "Yes, it's in the interest of our users, but *we have to choose* for Sarge - and which one is *more* in the interest of our users?" But that's OK. Our amd64 users just use the Alioth site instead of our wonderful mirror network, and track it as unstable. I mean, it's so much more effective to have it all hitting alioth for download, right? Thought so. People will (often) do it the right way if it's convenient, but if it serves a use to them, they *will* do it, right way or not. We support amd64 officially, or we support it unofficially and in a thoroughly half-assed manner, but it's what some number of developers and users care about, so we WILL end up supporting it (or rather, we ARE supporting it). The question is only 'how well?'. -- Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> ,''`. : :' : `. `' `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature