[I'll preface by saying I should have modulated my first post a little bit more than I did -- you see a more balanced approach in my second one.]
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I really don't understand this. The maintainers of the software the > > the upstream folks who provide the software. The Debian maintainer is > > not a porter for the software or the maintainer. > > Actually, we often are. Ask Branden. I think it's fine if the Debian maintainer wants to do this duty, but it shouldn't be required, or even recommended. > > If the upstream software maintainers state they don't want to support > > certain architectures, what the hell, isn't that their perogative? > > Strawman. Now, on what basis do you claim this is a strawman? I can think of plenty of projects where upstream has no support for a given arch and even may be adverse to adding support for that. Or more likely, they simply haven't ported the software to the given arch. Do you need me to cite actual projects? -- ...Adam Di Carlo..<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
