Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> And keeping IA64 in the loop is just another joke from the release
>> team. It'd be interesting to find out, but I bet more m68ks were sold
>> than IA64 last year.
> Which of these two architectures are you more likely to be able to run a
> current 2.6 kernel on, BTW?
I fail to see why this matters at all. It's not in your list of
requirements, remember ?
> You do know that m68k is the only architecture still carrying around
> 2.*2* kernels in sarge?
Yes. But there are 2.4 kernels available too, don't forget to mention
that fact. No 2.6, though, but that's not a problem right now. Might
become a problem for etch, I agree.
m68k folks, is there anything in the works for 2.6 ?
> The inclusion of ia64 in the release count is a projection, based on
> where I believe things are today. Nothing the release team is doing
> ensures that ia64 is going to be a viable port, a year from now when
> we're trying to release etch; and nothing says that one or more of the
> other ports won't be in a position to meet those criteria and get added
> to the release list.
What Thomas Bushnell said.
Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <email@example.com>
Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169
GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----