[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How should we deal with 'pointless-on-this-arch' packages?

On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 03:16:04AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:

> > Because it is perfectly fine to run kde on such a system. Anything
> > that can run gnome can run kde. Anything that can run X can run kde I
> > would even say. Kicking one alternative for something (like kde) but
> > not others (like gnome) should not be allowed.
> But I *am* saying that porters/maintainers should think about
> dropping all the heavy CPU- & RAM-using packages.
> Including GNOME.

I don't think this is good. Basically a user should be able to choose if
s/he would like to use Gnome or KDE. Wookeys proposal was about dropping
those packages from being a release criteria, not about dropping them at all
from that arch. 

> >                                               If the port decides
> > that they don't need any X, e.g. there is no hardware capable of
> > running X applications, then they could remove all X stuff as a
> > whole. That would be different from removing kde.
> > But I feel that X, Gnome, KDE is a big part of what makes Debian what
> > it is. If you remove all that is it still Debian?
> Am I not running Debian if I only have a minimal system installed?
> Of course I am.
> XFce, fvwm, BlackBox, AfterStep, WindowManager(?) and jwm would all
> still let you have a nice low-power system.

Of course, but why not let the other DEs being built, when there's enough
horse-power left, even if it's being built later? 

> [snip]
> >> If an Amiga (using the unaccelerated fb driver?) is running as an X
> >> Terminal for a powerful, modern box, the Amiga would need to process
> >> the OpenGL commands, no?
> > There are no amigas with unaccelerated FB driver I believe, which does
> > not mean the FB is all that fast though. There are also crads with 3D
> > hardware and even cards allowing to use PCI graphic cards,
> > theoretically. But I don't think there is anything actually supported
> > and in use capable of realtime 3D gaming. Would a Virge 3D card even
> > be good enough to play Tuxracer? Anything that needs realtime GL is
> > probably useless for m68k.
> > So even if you could get hardware GL working remotely m68k just
> > couldn't do it I think.
> Then why build Mesa/GL packages for 68k and ARM and (probably?) MIPS?

Because some users want to use them? 
Imagine a developer/programmer that has just an old faithfull Amiga with
some Virge 3D card, wanting to learn some OpenGL programming. This person
can actually use that machine to achieve knowledge about OpenGL programming.
If you exclude all OpenGL related packages from that arch, this person will
not be able to gain that knowledge. 
If you just exclude those packages from testing migration, that person can
still use an older version of that package in testing, but all the other
archs are not blocked by that slower arch for testing migration.

Ciao...                //        Fon: 0381-2744150 
      Ingo           \X/         SIP: 2744150@sipgate.de

gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij/public_key.asc

Reply to: