Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?
i have not been using debian/linux for very long
(less than a year), however i was involved with
unix and with several kinds of 68k based machines
when they were new.
my impression of the current situation is that there
is some fairly heavy politicking goings on here. one
the action is not consistent with debian's published
values of inclusiveness.
competitiveness as a philosophy of more or mightier
is better is to me also inconsistent with the values of
free software.
there should be some provision in the Rules for lighter
form of the distribution. It makes no sense to build KDE
for an arch where nobody could use it because of the
hardware limitations. that was not always the case.
so it would make more sense to me to require kde to
come up with a light version that would run on smaller
more limited platforms and could be useful both for
embedded and older machines rather than to require
68k to keep up with a meta package they have no
use for.
perhaps the action is for the best if it makes such
development easier.
please don't take this in too limited or literal terms.
there are other possibilities, such as improving the
source code distribution system to make it more like
the binary system. it is better really to have it to be
truly free software, if the burden of compiling as in
other tasks is distributed.
in recent years there has been a growing differential
between hardware capabilities and those of the total
system -- that is some bloating and inefficiencies are
obvious, as well as slowdowns in fundamental capabilities.
it is really nice to have an older machine that has been
renovated with linux, abandoned by its makers years before.
also it is inherent to smaller devices that they will have
more limited capabilities, that applies to handheld and
to laptops too, as well as perhaps specialized machines
one might re-build for a specific dedicated purpose.
i learn more the more limited the hardware.
here i am listing reasons why a need for some structure
to carry on with the inclusiveness that debian has publicized.
if we are doing this for our own self integrity, that is some
thing we represent here, as well as other things of course.
also to give people the freedom to participate in future
developments, let us assume it is not always going to be
organized around simply quantity.
On 9/18/06, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote:
* Michael Schmitz (schmitz@mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de) [060918 14:18]:
> > It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to
be a
> > release architecture for etch. I don't expect that this comes as any
great
>
> Well, I actually expected this to happen a lot sooner. When did we first
> discuss the new release criteria? Back then, I thought being mostly
> ignored for bug reports would kill the port dead within half a year.
> Thanks for proving my point, albeit belatedly so.
I doubt that has anything to do with making bug reports no longer RC.
> Future plans? Well, given the sorry state of affairs _overall_ over the
> last year (that's talking about ix86 or powerpc, not m68k) or so, I say
> I'll advocate everybody here in the lab to move on. Ubuntu looked good for
> a while at least. Debian has apparently grown too brittle now.
Eh, what are you talking about? Debian is getting way better than it
used to be, at least that's the impression I have. If you have another
opinion, please share that one with me (but that's off-topic for
debian-release as well as debian-m68k).
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-68k-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: