Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Our users and developers might want a distribution which > > 1. Runs on every platform; OR > 2. Is 100% free, but only needs to run on their mainstream desktop; OR > 3. Is technically the best at any cost; OR > 4. Suitable for production use on modern hardware; OR > some combination of these etc.
So, because a part of the developers aren't interested in supporting multiple architectures, we should just throw away 2/3 of the architectures we support ? (I'm not counting the developers who do not care, as they do not care) Tell you what, there are millions of people using Windows; why do we bother developing Linux ? Same reasoning. > In my reading, the proposal says that the release, ftp and post-release > teams don't have the resources to concentrate on every platform, so if > you want to see it maintained and released, you have to help. Which is what I'm doing, although I've been short on time these days (partly because I'm working on other projects involving Debian, should I add). >> As has been noted already, having a 18-24 months release cycle isn't >> much of a problem; actually, enterprise users pretty much like that, >> although 12 months is a more generally acceptable timeframe. > > Right, but we're at 32 months now and counting. Remember the compromise in november 2003, and don't forget to count the 6 months it took to implement testing-security, thanks. We have a clear problem with developing our infrastructure, and we should take care of it, instead of dropping architectures. But I'll soon post about that (on -project, the mail still needs to get written, might take a day or two). JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
