Re: Dropping sparc32 for lenny
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 21:51 +0100, 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,
> * Nearly complete lack of upstream support. David Miller, current
> upstream maintainer of sparc64 has expressed his thoughts on the
> topic in , triggering the discussion about dropping sparc32
> support in Aurora Linux. 
> * 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
> 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.
>  http://marc.info/?l=linux-sparc&m=117407830512186&w=2
>  http://lists.auroralinux.org/pipermail/aurora-sparc-user/2007-March/004504.html
IMO, because of the issues already noted, I think the Debian users have
already dropped support for sparc32. So Debian making it official is
just supporting reality, and not really changing it.
In other words, make the move. Sparc32 community is definitely not what
it used to be, and I'm doubting that anyone is seriously running 2.6.x
kernels on sparc32 boxes anyway (if mine was still running, I'd be using
2.4.x for sure).