On Sun, 2018-11-04 at 13:15 +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Hi, > > 2018-11-04 01:13 Ben Hutchings: > > On Sat, 2018-11-03 at 23:46 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: [...] > > > A regression of this scale shouldn't be done lightly. So what about > > > reverting it now so things don't degrade, then having a flamewar what to do? > > > > We already know what to do, which is to prioritise our upcoming release > > and the architectures that will be included in it. We do not allow > > Debian ports to hold back changes in unstable. > > I think that this is a reasonable assumption in general if the breakage > is small, but I am not sure if this is the case when in one single blow > a few architectures are completely removed from the table (and new > architectures too, until they get a LLVM and Rust port, along with all > other necessary support in other tools). > > For example RISC-V / riscv64 will probably not have LLVM ready at least > until the LLVM stable released next March. There are enough languages whose implementation depends on LLVM that I think it has to be considered an essential part of a new Debian port. I doubt this is a surprise to the RISC-V porters. Rust was already a build-dependency for our standard desktop installation, since Firefox uses it. > Maybe in this case there are other solutions, like keeping librsvg-rust > and librsvg-c for different architectures. [...] I do like the proposal of adding a librsvg-c for just the architectures that don't have Rust (yet). Ben. -- Ben Hutchings friends: People who know you well, but like you anyway.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part