Re: Bits from the FTPMaster meeting
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 07:41:51AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>
> I think one would be surprised how many packages get used on 'exotic'
> architectures. Most users don't specifically search for a piece of
> software, they want to have some specific task done by using a specific
> package. Not providing the package will only mean that the user either
> uses another package or does not get the task done.
Well, I do not think that you can do gene sequencing or number crunching
on current mobile phones. So there are really programs which are not
needed on all architectures and even if you find a binary package which
claims to do the job it is just useless. Even if I agree with your
arguing that each program at least theoretically should build on any
architecture (if not it is a bug) in some cases it looks foolish to
provide binary packages just for the sake of it. This is was Charles
meant when he wrote: We should trust the maintainer if a specific
program is not needed for a certain architecture.
> Slow architectures are dying otherwise there would get new chipsets
> built that are faster IMHO.
There are architectures for different issues. There are issues which
allways need the fastest available architecture and there are other
needs which are targeting at low power consumption etc. We should
probably not put a large effort on a theoretical option which is never
used in real live (and I mean a reall *never* not only low chances).
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: