[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Dropping sparc32 for lenny

Jurij Smakov wrote:


Now that we have released, we need to set our goals for the future. As you probably guessed from the subject, I am strongly in favor of dropping sparc32 support for lenny. There are multiple reasons for it, including

* Nearly complete lack of upstream support. David Miller, current upstream maintainer of sparc64 has expressed his thoughts on the topic in [0], triggering the discussion about dropping sparc32
 support in Aurora Linux. [1]
* Several serious problems, like lack of SMP support and driver failures (CD-ROMs do not work for some reason).
* Shrinking userbase, flaky hardware.
* Possibility to build the archive with optimization for UltraSparc processors, leading in some cases to significant performance improvements.

As much as I hate to see Debian lose the support for another subarchitecture, I don't think that anything can be done about it, unless a group of determined and, more importantly, capable people, willing to maintain, fix and test it, will emerge. There is also a possibility of separating sparc32 into an unofficial project.

Any thoughts on the matter will be appreciated. My intention is to come to a rough consensus (if possible), and then present our plan with regards to sparc32 to release managers.

[0] http://marc.info/?l=linux-sparc&m=117407830512186&w=2
[1] http://lists.auroralinux.org/pipermail/aurora-sparc-user/2007-March/004504.html

Best regards,
Why can't you have official sparc32 and sparc64 ports?

That way you can optimize sparc64 and still have sparc32 support.

Reply to: