On Friday 18 May 2007 14:05, Bastian Blank wrote: > I have to acknowledge the message from Dave[1]. Until there is a new > kernel upstream it may be possible to compile it but it is impossible > to fix real problems. Yes, I completely agree with that. However, when you casually propose to _deprecate_ (instead of temporarily disable) sparc32 as part of a kernel upload proposal, then I feel the discussion needs to be moved to a wider audience. On Friday 18 May 2007 14:12, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 04:23:00AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Has there been any input from the sparc porters on this last change? There are very few really active porters for sparc. Most active over the past couple of years has been Jurij Smakov, and he launched the proposal to drop sparc32. > > I agree with Frans that regardless of the upstream status, this isn't > > a change to be made without their consent. > > The given thread shows noone which intends to step in. And the process > to find a consent there seems to be failed. Correct. And I said as much in my mail. My take on the thread is that the general consensus among DDs is that it is unavoidable. Some users argue for continuation, but no one seems willing to step in and the work needed for that. Basically I'm in favor of dropping sparc32 (though also a bit sad about dropping support for yet another class of hardware). The arguments in favor of dropping it are pretty strong. I'd be satisfied if the project would reach that decision in this thread.
Attachment:
pgpFi7WustZRg.pgp
Description: PGP signature