Re: 64-bit transition deadline (Re: Etch in the hands of the Stable Release Managers)
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 17:42:31 -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> said:
> [M-F-T set appropriately]
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 11:15:56PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> writes:
>> > On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:10:58PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> >> Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> writes:
>> >>> The thing is, that if lenny will be released post-deadline, all
>> >>> the improvements carried by it will be of no use for the 64-bit
>> >>> battle that will have finished by late 2008.
>> >> I don't believe that there will be a 64-bit battle in late 2008,
>> > Does that mean you don't believe there will be such battle, or that
>> > you don't believe the predicted date?
What are the concrete reasons, you think, for thinking that 2008
(and not earlier or later) is going to be the deadline? From the
article, it seems to be mostly hand waving and pretending that the past
is a perfect prologue, which is an argument I find difficulty lending
any credibility to.
Given that the so called "deadline" is, at best, an educated
guess, and you might have an argument on the educated part, I don't
think this so called deadline deserves to impact the release schedule
directly.
The other part is, really, are we not supporting 64 bit
architectures? I might be out of the loop, but it does appear to me
that we have support for 64 bit stuff; so we have already met the
deadline as far as OS vendor responsibilities are concerned? What is it
that I am missing?
manoj
--
Whip me. Beat me. Make me maintain AIX. Stephan Zielinski
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: