On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 02:28 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:01:55PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: [...] > > I have not heard from the ppc64el porters, but I suspect ppc64 will > > not be a release arch. So you need to take into consideration that for > > powerpc to remain a release arch, one need minimal working ppc64 port. > > Could we solve the situation of ppc64 for Stretch, could it be moved > > to official release arch ? > > What would you need ppc64 for? Unlike i386, powerpc includes 64-bit > kernels so users don't need multiarch: [...] This is only the case because ppc64 has a lower level of support (unofficial port) than powerpc (release architecture). The 64-bit kernel package should be dropped once powerpc is at the same or lower level of support than ppc64 - just as we've done for i386, s390 and sparc. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Klipstein's 4th Law of Prototyping and Production: A fail-safe circuit will destroy others.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part