Re: Bug#482902: please provide libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages
On 5/26/2008, "Grant Grundler" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 06:55:58PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> The port has been coasting for several years now and things are
>> gradually rotting.
(replying to willy on that specific bit):
Though I won't deny the port has been coasting, I don't see why or how
it's been rotting. As I pointed out, the archive is built up to
unprecedented levels and we don't have any major breakage I'm aware
of. ISTR we have had bigger trouble in the past.
I'm also happily using parisc-linux on exposed servers (web and mail in
particular) without any trouble, so why should I worry?
>> Do we put a stake in the corpse now, or make an effort to fix some bugs?
>parisc-linux no longer has a "mission". IMHO, ditching the CVS tree
>might have been necessary several years ago but the replacement
>(kyle's parisc-2.6 git tree) hasn't been as effective. Not because
>of Kyle. One lesser reason is parisc-2.6 is not advertised or
>documented on www.parisc-linux.org. The stale website is another
>symptom of the same problem.
>See http://www.parisc-linux.org/kernel/index.html .
Incidentally, I have a bunch of patches for our website that I intended
to commit yesterday, but I forgot to do so (updating the mailing-list
page, in particular). I shall do it ASAP. Yet I believe I'm not the
only person with write access to the CVS repository that hosts our
website source ;-)
>Much of the previous work happened because HP sponsored it or HP employees
>had an interest in contributing to it. Of that group, most no longer
>work for HP and only a few spend more than a few hours per week
>working on parisc-linux issues.
Is there nobody left at HP who care about parisc-linux? What's HP's
stance on the topic (if any)?
>And like kyle, I have several projects I've started but just didn't
>have time to finish (e.g. disable pa8800 L2 cache). It sucks.
>And because of that, I've starting to think that if not enough
>people care, it's not worth doing. It hurts. But that's why I
>agree with willy.
I certainly agree with you (and willy) on the fact that it's apparent
not enough people care about the port. Otoh I believe we have a somewhat
nice userbase (the silent crowd) who's using parisc-linux (I have
evidence to back that up: mail I receive on the hwdb and pateam
mailboxes of installation reports and other general questions). Maybe we
could try leveraging that and raising awareness on the fact that the
port needs help?
The point I do not agree with, though, is the idea that support for the
port should be dropped just because it seems nobody cares. I for one
don't see a reason to be overly verbose since "everything looks
good". i.e. I'm not aware of any major issue (again if there's one,
please let us know), save for our current trouble with 2.6.26-rc
kernels, but that's another story and we've already been there
(remember 2.6.20) and got over it.