Hi, [I've replaced debian-ports with debian-sparc in the recipients list] Niels Thykier wrote: > Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total > ---------------++-----++---------++-------++------ […] > sparc[2] || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 […] > [2] By the looks of it, if sparc was replaced by sparc64, we could be > looking at 3 in the "Other"-column rather than 0. Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > So it might make sense to drop sparc in any case and add sparc64 if > there are enough people interested. Well, count me in for sparc64 in general, too. I expect, too, that's where we're heading to anyway, and I don't expect too many differences. I though fear that we're not yet there: Yesterday I tried to setup a sparc64 chroot on a second disc in one of my Sparcs, but the currently documented way[1] to do so failed[2] due to outdated packages. On a first glance it looks like missing BinNMUs for the Perl 5.14 to Perl 5.18 transition. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Sparc64#Bootstrapping_sparc64 [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2013/10/msg00001.html OTOH such issues were present in the past[3] of sparc64, too, back then with the transition from Perl 5.10 to Perl 5.12. [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2011/05/msg00030.html Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE `- | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature