On Tuesday 22 May 2007 16:03, elw@stderr.org wrote: > > The main reason is the fact that sparc32 support is no longer being > > maintained upstream for the kernel [2]. A result of that is that the > > 2.6.21 kernel is currently broken, which forces the issue. > > It seems obvious that someone will *eventually* fix sparc32 support in > the kernel upstream. "Eventually" is not good enough. > Why the rush to kill off the port, without waiting a relatively sane > period of time for upstream issues to be fixed? 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. Waiting 3 months (what you apparently consider a "sane" period) for a fix for major upstream breakage is _not_ acceptable for a release arch. Debian cannot afford to have a broken kernel for a release subarch for that period of time. Kernel development moves too fast for that. If the current issue is fixed in three months, there will probably be 5 new issues that will not be fixed and we'll still not have a working kernel. > 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. Cheers, FJP
Attachment:
pgp7tik1D2CEx.pgp
Description: PGP signature