Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting
On 08/31/2011 01:45 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:35:59AM +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
>> * Lucas Nussbaum (firstname.lastname@example.org) [110831 10:56]:
>>> 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.
>> You are aware that there are mipsel netbooks? And arm tablets?
> In some previous discussion I was also pointed at 64-core mips workstations.
> How many of these machines are running Debian ?
> I do not think that we can consider ports equally. The arm platform and the
> armel port have some clear success. According to popcon, the user community of
> Debian on armel is constantly growing, and is aproximately 1 % of our ‘PC’
> (i386 and amd64) user community. Also, other distributions, for instance
> Ubuntu, increase their committment for this platform. In comparison, the
> usrerbase of the mipsel port stagnates to 0.05 % of our PC userbase. If there
> were many Debian users of mipsel netbooks and workstations, why would they not
> use Popcon, as the Debian users of armel computers do ?
The mipsel port is used by the Lemote Notebooks/mini Desktops for example, which
come pre-installed with Debian. Not sure if they have popcon enabled at all. And
I guess mipsel is more a target for Embedian. No idea about usage statistics
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F