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

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 04:38:04PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> 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.
OK, not being a SPARC expert myself, I'd still like to see a list of
issues or bugs which are worth dropping a whole sub-architecture.

Maybe some of them don't even require a SPARC guru to fix them? Maybe
some are "easy" enough so someone could fix them after reading some
documentation? In that case I'm willing to have a look at them.

> > 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.

Well, I just saw three or more sparc32 patches being committed to Linus'
git tree today or yesterday, so that may not be quite correct.

http://www.hermann-uwe.de  | http://www.holsham-traders.de
http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: