Re: skipping bioinformatics on some architectures ?
Charles Plessy dixit:
>Hi Thorsten,
>
>that seems to argue for reducing the list of packages in m68k or other ports.
I personally actually disagree with this a lot:
ⓐ it’s a bit of all-or-nothing, we really have to prove that we’re
capable of supporting a modern operating system, including applying
fixes to all parts (hardware, “firmware”, kernel, libc, userspace,
toolchain, and *also* those applications) when needed (of course,
that’s not just the porters and HW owners but also the maintainers
and the upstreams)
>Some programs are obviously useless on low-power platforms, for instance, most
ⓑ A reduction is hard and somewhat useless because many of the programs
depend or build-depend on others, so you can’t just skip “all” of them
without breaking installability.
>of the packages with the Field::Biology tag. If you are interested I would be
>willing to inspect the corner cases (such as mencal ?), in order to devise a
You could use the Architecture field on select leaf packages, but please
don’t overdo this. (General archive rule is that iff something compiles,
generally, on all architectures, to write “any” there, or “linux-any” if
it compiles on all of them.) At least not without cōnsēnsus (some).
One thing I think we *can* do is to have debports wanna-build lower the
build priorities of some sections below what we currently have as “all
others”, which would mean that e.g. bioinformatics would still be built
but only after the rest (both out-of-date and uncompiled) was. Aurélien,
is this possible? Right now, we have the problem that an upload of a
previously compiled source package that’s “totally unimportant” will be
sorted before all source packages in state “uncompiled”.
That way we’re still going to have them, just not “necessarily”.
Oh, and never say never… I’ve run BOINC on MirBSD/sparc on a
SPARCstation 20 for a while. Of course this didn’t yield lots
of cobblestones of computation but it worked.
Nevertheless, thanks a lot for your consideration.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
I want one of these. They cost 720 € though… good they don’t have the HD hole,
which indicates 3½″ floppies with double capacity… still. A tad too much, atm.
‣ http://www.floppytable.com/floppytable-images-1.html
Reply to: