Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

[Martin <inkubus@interalpha.co.uk>]

> > We project that applying these rules for etch will reduce the set of
> > candidate architectures from 11 to approximately 4 (i386, powerpc, ia64
> > and amd64 -- which will be added after sarge's release when mirror space
> 
> no sparc here.
> 
> After speaking to Andreas Barth, asking, why sparc might become SCC, he
> pointed my to the last release update where it says:
> 
> | It's for this reason that all architectures are
> | required to be synced to the same kernel version for sarge, but even so,
> | more per-architecture kernel help is needed, particularly for the sparc
> | and the arm port.
> 
> So we seem to have a lack of sparc kernel hackers/developers.
> I myself are using Debian on sparc very much, but do not have the
> knowledge with sparc kernels to help here.
I know a little and would be willing to help if it meant that sparc
would stay a 'first class citizen'.  I don't have much time but I
suspect that a little time given to helping Debian/SPARC would be better
than having to port everything I run to a different distro / UNIX just
to have consistancy.

> The only thing i could do here is testing, testing, testing...
> 
> > - 5 developers who will use or work on the port must send in
> >   signed requests for its addition
> > 
> > - the port must demonstrate that they have at least 50 users
> 
> That should be possible somehow.
Guess so.

Is there anyone 'in charge' of the Debian/sparc port or anyone
co-ordinating the fight to keep Debian/sparc a live port?

Cheers,
 - Martin

-- 
Martin
inkubus@interalpha.co.uk
"Seasons change, things come to pass"