Slightly like watching a group of boys poking a nearly dead dog.
On 23/07/07, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 04:38:04PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Do you really think this is a decision that was made lightly? The
> > problem is, and that has been mentioned before, that *there is no
> > upstream maintainer* for sparc32. Unless some people step up and
> > ensure that upstream issues _are_ fixed in a timely manner,
> > sparc32 is effectively dead.
>
> OK, not being a SPARC expert myself, I'd still like to see a list of
> issues or bugs which are worth dropping a whole sub-architecture.
>
> Maybe some of them don't even require a SPARC guru to fix them? Maybe
> some are "easy" enough so someone could fix them after reading some
> documentation? In that case I'm willing to have a look at them.
Regardless of the set of bugs or the difficulty of fixing them, every
architecture itself needs Debian porters and upstream support to meet
Debian release policy.
<URL:http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_policy.html>
I'm not saying that sparc32 can't meet policy; I'm merely saying that
such a judgement is unaffected by discussions about the tractability
of the existing bugs.
> Well, I just saw three or more sparc32 patches being committed to
> Linus' git tree today or yesterday, so that may not be quite
> correct.
The kernel is but one program in Debian.
--
\ "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "Umm, I think |
`\ so, Brain, but three men in a tub? Ooh, that's unsanitary!" -- |
_o__) _Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney
--
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]
