[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian for SuperH bootstrapping



Hi!

[ mail crossposted to debian-project as this might interest
  other people, too. Please reply to debian-superh  ]

On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 07:21:25AM +0900, YAEGASHI Takeshi <t@keshi.org> wrote...
 
> As the recent discussions in SuperH lists, we should have four
> different architectures for SuperH, namely sh3, sh4, sh3eb, sh4eb.
> With this scheme NIIBE Yutaka has maintained the newer deb set seen at
> ftp://ftp.m17n.org/pub/super-h/testing/debian-011210/.

In general, i do agree that there is need for all 4 sub architectures, but
I don't think the need is big enough for the cost of Debian distributing
all 4 flavours. By cost I specifically don't mean compile time or maintainer
work load (if somebody wants to do it, he/she should do it), but things like
mirror diskspace and bandwidth. I don't think that there will be more than
a handfull of people using the exotic variants (sh.eb ? )

Providing the infrastructure for people who want to compile their own
packages is certainly good, so we should make the changes to dpkg and family
but we should SERIOUSLY consider, if we want to provide all 4 variants
as the Debian project.  

So, how would the members of the debian-suoerh list order
sh3, sh4, sh3eb, sh4eb according to importance and number of potential users?
Then we can debate how many and which subarchitectures we compile and
distribute.
 
-- 
	Oliver M. Bolzer
	oliver@gol.com

GPG (PGP) Fingerprint = 621B 52F6 2AC1 36DB 8761  018F 8786 87AD EF50 D1FF

Attachment: pgpCL48oqQ1FF.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: