Re: vancouver revisited
Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
Yes, there is: one of the more frequent uses of minority architectures
is diversity in internet-facing machines: I've run sparc, powerpc and
MIPs machines in this role, and am currently running linksys (mips) box
as my firewall / gateway / DMZ (doing more than that, of course). The
security and stability of stable is whats important to me: it'll never
run X or mozilla ;-)
Em Seg, 2005-08-22 às 00:34 +0300, Riku Voipio escreveu:
jffs2 image, which is then flashed to a pile of devices. Walking
through d-i every time would be very clumsy, so there is no use
for a working installer for those systems.
There's no use for a full-blown stable release for such things, most of
the times, either.
This is why (some) people find the 'second class' nature of the
Vancouver proposal so disturbing: not just whats happening now, but its
cutting off such futures that we are working towards.
In my day job I am using Debian and openwrt (cut down Linux on linksys,
etc) and with the resources on such boxes growing, and the ability to
cut down linux (eg. replace glibc in base by ulibc, put base on a diet,
etc.) we can forsee a time where Debian stable will run on such machines
However dropping Mips, etc. would cause a stagnation: just when you get
the Debian base to fit on the machines, Debian stable is no longer
supported on them. This is what we want to avoid.
Hence its important to avoid this: while I appreciate the reluctance to
have architectures with "no users" in the archive, its having Debian
available on the arch that makes it feasible to use the arch in your
next project, and bring the users.
For this reason I think its important to work on the underlying _real_
techincal problem: some way of fixing the toolchain issues that make
having the archs a problem. Solutions such as autobuilding the arch with
upcoming toolchains in experimental, pulling more test suites into the
build so that the packages are not just built but run on the archs, etc.