Re: Bits from the FTPMaster meeting

[Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>]

Andreas Tille wrote:
> 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).

That is what I meant. There are users of openoffice.org on armel and
mipsel, so it's not at all theoretical even if one would think
differently from a first look.

Cheers

Luk