Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again
Le Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 08:44:17PM +0200, Hector Oron a écrit :
>
> 2010/7/13, Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com>:
> > I believe it is a good idea for Debian to drop
> > the lesser used architectures to ensure they do not slow down the rate
> > of improvement in Debian.
>
> I am proud of the amount of architectures Debian supports. I also
> understand its overhead, but I think that having software that runs on
> any processor makes Debian one of the best choices out there.
>
> I would also like to point you to http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=58
Dear all,
I am sure that we could achieve the suggested goal, which is to have a port
ready and in a good shape when an architecture turns mainstream, if we were
following a strategy similar to what is suggested on the following page of
Fedora's wiki:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SecondaryArchitectures
We could rename the concept ‘pioneer architecture’ to make it more proud, and
adapt it to our current practice (for instance give more logistic support to
the port than what is written in this document).
In situations where nobody volunteers to do the work of porting leaf packages
for scientific computation on embedded arches where nobody will use them, my
conclusion is that it would be harmless for the ports to ignore the package
completely.
Taken from the pakcage point of view, the question is whether our project wants
to have specialised software distributed in Debian itself, or in derivatives
that focus on a subset of our architectures.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: