On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:07:08AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> pe, 2008-08-15 kello 09:59 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann kirjoitti:
> > True. I would rather like to see the m68k porters to spend their time on
> > real porting issues than on establishing the infrastructure that is needed
> > because of the immanent drop.
> It seems to me that _if_ the proposed change happens, it would make most
> sense to set up a single ports machine to handle the infrastructure for
> all the ports, rather than once for each port. I don't have an opinion
> on whether the proposed change is sane (to use Joerg's word), or well
> argued, but if it happens, conserving the effort caused by it seems
> sensible.
Well, I've no doubt that the drop will happen. There's already to much
happening to make that plan to drop archs becoming reality.
But yes, it would make sense to have a single ports machine or a single
infrastructure to handle those dropped ports.
So far the argueing was mostly because of space constraints (sometimes
traffic as well). I think the archive split has helped with the space issues
on the primary mirros.
IMHO, the time would have been better spent to think over the release scheme
of releasing >>7000 packages for all archs and save space that way instead of
plans to drop archs. But: YMMV. For me it makes not that much sense to build
and upload such packages as atlas3 and others for m68k. But changing this
would mean a change in the "build all packages for all archs" mantra.
> Although: does it strike anyone else that this is becoming fairly close
> to an outright fork of Debian?
Surprised? I would be happy when this wasn't forced on us, though...
And it means that I'll need to abandon my backports.org mirror in favour of
the m68k mirror (space constraints ;-)...
--
Ciao... // Fon: 0381-2744150
Ingo \X/ SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij_public_key.asc
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
