On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 04:38:04PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > Do you really think this is a decision that was made lightly? > The problem is, and that has been mentioned before, that *there is no > upstream maintainer* for sparc32. Unless some people step up and ensure > that upstream issues _are_ fixed in a timely manner, sparc32 is > effectively dead. OK, not being a SPARC expert myself, I'd still like to see a list of issues or bugs which are worth dropping a whole sub-architecture. Maybe some of them don't even require a SPARC guru to fix them? Maybe some are "easy" enough so someone could fix them after reading some documentation? In that case I'm willing to have a look at them. > > This starts to sound like m68k part 2. > > No, it is completely different as m68k _does_ have a group of enthusiastic > people behind it who actually work on upstream issues. sparc32 has none. Well, I just saw three or more sparc32 patches being committed to Linus' git tree today or yesterday, so that may not be quite correct. Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature