Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
-->"Steven" == Steven Ringwald <email@example.com> writes:
Steven> I joined the sparc32 list with the intention of
Steven> contributing. My surprise, and disappointment, is because
Steven> the first message that I saw regarding the architecture is
Steven> that it is going to be retired.
i'm not familiar with how Debian does these things, but here's an idea
of what i'd like to see happen:
- SPARC32 support for lenny is formally stated to be "dropped, pending
for 6 months". this is *kinda* a replay of the last 4 months, but
with an additional level of formality
- those who wish to contribute to the SPARC64 port can thus use the v9
code generation options, etc
- those who care about continued support for SPARC32 need to form a
community, learn/build the required skills to maintain the critical
components, being at least gcc and the Linux kernel.
i imagine this will require some wiki space, a separate mailing
list, and (critically) some reasonablly capable hardware for build
- in 6 months, we review the situation: if the kernel and GCC/SPARC32
have attracted a sufficiently capable and committed (time-wise)
team, and suitable hardware is available, we petition for the
"dropped, pending" status to be revoked.
i think at that point we'd require a separate SPARC32 platform. i'm
not sure how that would be viewed by the wider Debian community,
which i'd imagine is wary of additional platforms.
alternatively, the SPARC32 port could operate on a semi-official
basis, much like the x86-64 port did prior to etch?
i don't think it's fair that those in favour of continuing SPARC32
support hold back the SPARC64 effort. those of us who care about
SPARC32 need a chance to get organised, and take over the maintenance
of the key components required.