Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
Thiemo Seufer <email@example.com> writes:
> Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:06:18PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>> > > * Hamish Moffatt <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2005-03-14 23:00]:
>> > > > But really, is there much benefit in making *releases* for the SCC
>> > > > architectures?
>> > >
>> > > For some SSC arches, it *might* not make a difference (possibly m68k)
>> > > but others (e.g. s390 and mipsel) are typically used for servers
>> > > or gateways, and you don't really want to run unstable in such
>> > > environments. testing+security updates might be a compromise, but
>> > > unstable is clearly not an option for a S390 box or a mipsel Cobalt
>> > > gateway.
>> > OK, that makes sense. Can you buy those architectures new? (Surely yes
>> > in the case of s390 at least, probably mipsel also as the mips CPU
>> > manufacturers are alive and well.)
>> AFAIK m68k is the only one which isn't available anymore, unless you
>> count its mmu-less variants in.
> Apparently even m68k is still available, as Wouter pointed out.
I think the only criteria m68k fails are the "2 buildds have to
suffice to keep up with etch" and the "10% download shares".
Hell, if it comes down to m68k dropping out because of not enough
downloads I will run "while true; apt-get update; apt-get clean;
apt-get -d dist-upgrade; done". </irony>