Re: HPPA and Squeeze
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Luk Claes<luk@debian.org> wrote:
> John David Anglin wrote:
>>> Grant Grundler schrieb:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:49:26AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>>>>> Grant Grundler wrote:
>
>> I can understand the desire to trim architectures. However, it's clear
>> the current decision was based on some misinformation, and an unclear
>> rational.
>
> There is no desire to trim working architectures.
>
> It's very easy to tell there is nothing wrong when you don't have to
> deal with unreliable build daemons, endless discussions but no visible
> progress (except for java support) and complaints from DSA, package
> maintainers and others.
I'm sorry, but this thread is now over 2 weeks old and we yet have to
see a *rationale* motivating the current decision. Not some claims
about bugs (which we still haven't been pointed at, except for the
ruby one, which we addressed already) affecting the buildds (and that
only you experience). Speaking of which, I'm not aware of any problem
affecting lafayette...
We have given you tangible elements and have answered each and every
questions that have been raised in this thread. The release team, on
the other hand, failed to answer the single question we've been
asking: what's the rationale for dropping parisc?
I joined Debian many years ago because it seemed to me that it had
proper ethics, in particular because decisions were taken
transparently, and were properly - and openly - discussed before
anything final was settled. I too have invested time and money into
the project. I'm extremely disappointed with the handling of the issue
at stake here.
Again, I would like to see a comprehensive rationale for this
decision, so that we can at least try to address the problems at hands
and hope for re-inclusion after squeeze. BTW, can you clarify whether
that would be an option?
Cheers,
T-Bone
--
Thibaut VARENE
http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/
Reply to: