Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
- From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:32:42 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 874qfeqrnp.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
- In-reply-to: <20050314044505.GA5157@mauritius.dodds.net> (Steve Langasek's message of "Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:45:09 -0800")
- References: <20050314044505.GA5157@mauritius.dodds.net>
* Steve Langasek:
> We project that applying these rules for etch will reduce the set of
> candidate architectures from 11 to approximately 4 (i386, powerpc, ia64
> and amd64 -- which will be added after sarge's release when mirror space
> is freed up by moving the other architectures to scc.debian.org).
It might be worthwhile to have at least one big-endian 64-bit
architecture in the mix because this one will catch some of the
porting difficulties a similar SCC architecture might run into.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is an architecture which is fully
supported by upstream (toolchain and kernel), so this plan might be
impossible to carry out.
I'm a bit disappointed how the decision has been made. I would have
hoped that Debian as an organization would be able to reach a
workable, rough consensus through open discussion. On the other hand,
we might have ended up with unprecedented levels of hostility. 8-(
Reply to: