Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
AJ's categorization has some traction, but I think it's a somewhat
I was kind-of hoping it wasn't even that: we've been supporting all
these architectures for over two years now; are they really completely
I think Sarge on ARM has the potential to greatly reduce the learning
curve for some kinds of embedded development, especially if Iyonix
succeeds in its niche (long live the Acorn!).
So, I looked at the website, but all I can see are expensive PCs that
happen to have an arm chip. Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN,
use them to develop software for arm chips, and then just follow
unstable or run non-security-supported snapshots. Apart from writing
software for embedded arm things, I can't see the value -- and if an
arch is just going to be used for development, does it really need all
the support we give stable in order to make it useful for servers and
such? If so, why? If not, what level of support does it need, that goes
beyond "unstable + snapshotting facility", and why? Debian developers
manage to develop on unstable fairly well, eg, why isn't that enough? Is
this just a PR issue, in that "unstable" and "snapshot" aren't something
you can put on a brochure or brag about on slashdot?
Seriously, I'm not really looking for comparisons to i386 (least of all
in the "but i386 will be dead soon too!" sense), just "Yeah, we use
these machines for this purpose; we're serious about it for these
reasons; we need this level of support from our OS vendor because of
these considerations (and, eg, FooBar provides it thus...)."
I guess this is really the wrong place to ask for "we use these
machines" answers instead of "we develop for these machines", but hey.