Re: HPPA and Squeeze
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Grant Grundler schrieb:
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:49:26AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>>> Grant Grundler wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
>>>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/04/msg00303.html
>>> Note that it's wrong to assume we will come with the answers.
>> I was expecting a summary of specific issues from an organization
>> that claims to operate transperently. The hand waving is easy. But
>> doesn't resolve problems and doesn't meet my expectation of an "open"
>> organization that I've donated money, time, and materials to.
>
> +1. dropping hppa as a release architecture was not communicated by the release
> team at all. I did spend some time to get gcj / default-jdk working on hppa,
> and some money (buying a new disk for a hppa machine) to help this port. The
> time and the money could have spent better, if d-r would have better
> communicated about their intent.
There are issues with the hppa port where the release team considered
dropping it since 2005 communicated to the porter list...
> hppa is not in a good shape, but there are other architectures which are not
> better (sparc, mips*) from a toolchain point of view. what about these?
I'm not aware of current toolchain issues on sparc and the issues on
mips* still seem to be manageable, no?
> there are issues pointed out and not addressed like the -dev / -headers packages
> built as binary independent packages just to save disk space, which have an
> impact on "slow" architectures, and which are not addressed by the release team.
> would the release team mind addressing these real issues, or should we drop
> "slow" architectures as well?
Well, this Packages issue is clearly a responsability from the FTP Team
and the Release Team would indeed be very happy to have that resolved.
Cheers
Luk
Reply to: