Re: How to define a release architecture
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
>
> > > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
> > > Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive.
>
> > I don't understand this. What is the problem with Debian is keeping an
> > architecture alive? What problem are you trying to solve here?
>
> Given that there are architectures that have been end-of-lifed (but *are*
> still available for purchase new) that we've had problems keeping our
> autobuilders running for, I think it's a fair guess that hardware that truly
> is no longer available for purchase is going to be costly for the project to
> continue to support for a stable release.
>...
The only sarge architectures that are likely of being affected by your
"must be publicly available to buy new" rule during the next 10 years
are hppa and alpha (dunno about s390).
Both architectures had a long lifespan during which many machines were
produced and damned fast machines are likely being produced until the
last day when they'll be produced.
For both of these architectures, HP still offers servers today.
And if HP one day stops with this, they will still have to offer
replacement parts for their costumers for _many_ years.
Debian has good connections with HP.
Wouldn't an arrangement with HP of getting hardware plus some years of
support being an alternative to your announcement that you plan to drop
the hppa and alpha architectures from Debian releases?
> Steve Langasek
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: