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

Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting

On 31/08/11 at 10:37 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 08/31/2011 07:34 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I've always wondered what was the point of having some architectures
> > part of stable releases as official architectures. Sure, they are very
> > useful as experimental architectures, and very fun to work on, but it's
> > unlikely that people will use them on production machines because the
> > hardware is too old & slow, or some key piece of software is too
> > unstable.
> That is not necessarily true, there are a lot of people who need to work
> with old, probably sponsored hardware. Also there are a lot of embedded
> systems which run Debian or derivates of Debian. So looking at the list
> of architectures, the only one I could imagine to get rid of at some
> point would be sparc, maybe powerpc and ia64.

Note that I'm not saying that we should get rid of them. Only that we
should move them out of the "critical path". If there are active buildd
admins, I don't see why they couldn't continue to use Debian

Also, in the case of architectures targetted at embedded systems (I'm
thinking about mips and mipsel), what is important is that Debian
infrastructure supports the development of those architectures, but I
don't think that there's much to gain by being officially supported if
it's only used in production through derivatives that can provide the
official support.

hurd-i386, kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 are probably too
experimental to be used on production systems. For kfreebsd, my main
problem (with my Ruby hat) is the linuxthreads-based thread library, but
there might be other problems.


Reply to: