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:
pgpgxMzCv9hxx.pgp
Description: PGP signature