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

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

On Tuesday 22 May 2007 16:03, elw@stderr.org wrote:
> > The main reason is the fact that sparc32 support is no longer being
> > maintained upstream for the kernel [2]. A result of that is that the
> > 2.6.21 kernel is currently broken, which forces the issue.
> It seems obvious that someone will *eventually* fix sparc32 support in
> the kernel upstream.

"Eventually" is not good enough.

> Why the rush to kill off the port, without waiting a relatively sane
> period of time for upstream issues to be fixed?

Do you really think this is a decision that was made lightly?
The problem is, and that has been mentioned before, that *there is no 
upstream maintainer* for sparc32. Unless some people step up and ensure 
that upstream issues _are_ fixed in a timely manner, sparc32 is 
effectively dead.

Waiting 3 months (what you apparently consider a "sane" period) for a fix 
for major upstream breakage is _not_ acceptable for a release arch.
Debian cannot afford to have a broken kernel for a release subarch for 
that period of time. Kernel development moves too fast for that. If the 
current issue is fixed in three months, there will probably be 5 new 
issues that will not be fixed and we'll still not have a working kernel.

> This starts to sound like m68k part 2.

No, it is completely different as m68k _does_ have a group of enthusiastic 
people behind it who actually work on upstream issues. sparc32 has none.


Attachment: pgpYKozxHwlSM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: