Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:10:32AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:37:51AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> > In general I would like to say that supporting a lot of architectures was
> > an important difference between Debian and other distributions. I know the
>
> In fact it was one of the 2 main reasons for my choice. apt-get was the other
> main reason.
>
> > drawbacks of this but I just do not want to hide my opinion that I do not
> > like the idea of reducing the number of supported architectures that
> > drastical.
> > IMHO the effect would be that people will start forking Debian for porting
> > issues and we will loose the power of those porters while they will spend
> > time for things they would not have to do else.
>
> And the userbase will get smaller. It's not unlikey that I will power off
> all non-supported archs then and migrate to another distribution that has
> not those internal problems like Debian. And I think that I won't be the
> only one.
> IMHO scc.d.o will result in focussing on those archs, making it worse and
> worse for the other archs. Implementing scc.d.o is equally to dropping those
> older archs in my eyes. It's just another wording.
Notice, that there is really a unclarity of what the problem is, and the
wording of the announcement really didn't help on this.
If the main problem is the mirror network, i think it does make sense to drop
some arches from the mirror network. After all, ir could well be that for some
arches we have more mirrors than users, and a single, or smaller group of
mirrors for those arches could well be worth it. It could probably be done at
the DNS level that ftp.<arch>.debian.org automagically points to the right
place and such, and should be transparent.
But again, i feel that the announcement was one thing, but that it lacks much
information about the reason which pushed the decision, and the individual
technical problems to be overcome. Are the minutes of the release-team meeting
publically available ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: