Re: Usage of real m68k hardware
Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> writes:
> I'd suggest you let go and stop caring about m68k. m68k has been dropped
> from Debian many releases ago, thus IMO bugs affecting only m68k are
> probably at most normal severity, though minor or wishlist IMO make
> equally sense. Or just closing them as out of scope. Or you could tag
> them "help" and move on. The important thing is to let go and move on.
>
> And please, m68k folks, dont get me wrong, I'm fascinated by your work
> and applaud your efforts. I just dont think they should get in the way
> of working on Debian (on our supported hardware plattforms).
Back when I was maintaining OpenAFS, I frequently wanted some way as a
maintainer to easily tag a package as "this will never for the forseeable
future be supported on this architecture" and move on. We don't have a
great mechanism for doing this right now -- there's a thing on the buildds
that's pretty opaque and that I don't know how to set as a maintainer, and
one can list a bunch of specific architectures on the package but that's
really awkward and interacts poorly with arch: all packages.
The chances of anyone really wanting to run some of this scientific
software on m68k seem remote, so it feels like it would be an overall
reduction of friction if the maintainer could just say "I don't support
this arch" and the porters could stop looking at those packages (unless
for some reason they disagree with the maintainer and think users of that
arch are really interested).
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: