i have not been using debian/linux for very long (less than a year), however i was involved with unix and with several kinds of 68k based machines when they were new.
my impression of the current situation is that there is some fairly heavy politicking goings on here. one the action is not consistent with debian's published values of inclusiveness. competitiveness as a philosophy of more or mightier is better is to me also inconsistent with the values of free software. there should be some provision in the Rules for lighter form of the distribution. It makes no sense to build KDE for an arch where nobody could use it because of the hardware limitations. that was not always the case. so it would make more sense to me to require kde to come up with a light version that would run on smaller more limited platforms and could be useful both for embedded and older machines rather than to require 68k to keep up with a meta package they have no use for. perhaps the action is for the best if it makes such development easier. please don't take this in too limited or literal terms. there are other possibilities, such as improving the source code distribution system to make it more like the binary system. it is better really to have it to be truly free software, if the burden of compiling as in other tasks is distributed. in recent years there has been a growing differential between hardware capabilities and those of the total system -- that is some bloating and inefficiencies are obvious, as well as slowdowns in fundamental capabilities. it is really nice to have an older machine that has been renovated with linux, abandoned by its makers years before. also it is inherent to smaller devices that they will have more limited capabilities, that applies to handheld and to laptops too, as well as perhaps specialized machines one might re-build for a specific dedicated purpose. i learn more the more limited the hardware. here i am listing reasons why a need for some structure to carry on with the inclusiveness that debian has publicized. if we are doing this for our own self integrity, that is some thing we represent here, as well as other things of course. also to give people the freedom to participate in future developments, let us assume it is not always going to be organized around simply quantity. On 9/18/06, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Michael Schmitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060918 14:18]: > > It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a > > release architecture for etch. I don't expect that this comes as any great > > Well, I actually expected this to happen a lot sooner. When did we first > discuss the new release criteria? Back then, I thought being mostly > ignored for bug reports would kill the port dead within half a year. > Thanks for proving my point, albeit belatedly so. I doubt that has anything to do with making bug reports no longer RC. > Future plans? Well, given the sorry state of affairs _overall_ over the > last year (that's talking about ix86 or powerpc, not m68k) or so, I say > I'll advocate everybody here in the lab to move on. Ubuntu looked good for > a while at least. Debian has apparently grown too brittle now. Eh, what are you talking about? Debian is getting way better than it used to be, at least that's the impression I have. If you have another opinion, please share that one with me (but that's off-topic for debian-release as well as debian-m68k). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
