Re: Upcoming changes to supported architectures
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:07:08AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> pe, 2008-08-15 kello 09:59 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann kirjoitti:
> > True. I would rather like to see the m68k porters to spend their time on
> > real porting issues than on establishing the infrastructure that is needed
> > because of the immanent drop.
> It seems to me that _if_ the proposed change happens, it would make most
> sense to set up a single ports machine to handle the infrastructure for
> all the ports, rather than once for each port. I don't have an opinion
> on whether the proposed change is sane (to use Joerg's word), or well
> argued, but if it happens, conserving the effort caused by it seems
Well, I've no doubt that the drop will happen. There's already to much
happening to make that plan to drop archs becoming reality.
But yes, it would make sense to have a single ports machine or a single
infrastructure to handle those dropped ports.
So far the argueing was mostly because of space constraints (sometimes
traffic as well). I think the archive split has helped with the space issues
on the primary mirros.
IMHO, the time would have been better spent to think over the release scheme
of releasing >>7000 packages for all archs and save space that way instead of
plans to drop archs. But: YMMV. For me it makes not that much sense to build
and upload such packages as atlas3 and others for m68k. But changing this
would mean a change in the "build all packages for all archs" mantra.
> Although: does it strike anyone else that this is becoming fairly close
> to an outright fork of Debian?
Surprised? I would be happy when this wasn't forced on us, though...
And it means that I'll need to abandon my backports.org mirror in favour of
the m68k mirror (space constraints ;-)...
Ciao... // Fon: 0381-2744150
Ingo \X/ SIP: email@example.com
gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij_public_key.asc