Either ignore my ability to proofread my emails in their entirety or have a good laugh at my two things that seemingly became 3. :)
Thanks, Brock On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 9:10 AM Brock Wittrock <brockwittr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Two things from this thread: > > 1) It was a simple enough request and reasonable in my opinion. I'm also > glad that he was willing to ask in the first place because as some say, > when you don't ask the answer is already no anyways, so why not ask? > > 2) I understand though why the other side sees his request as a bit > outrageous from a user base and upstream support, perspective (among other > reasons). In most cases, I'd agree that those are the perfect metrics to > measure one's decision on for these kinds of matters in almost all cases. > On the other hand, I see M68K (both the new and old hardware) as an > important architecture to keep around for 1) keeping a wide variety of CPU > architectures available for learning, understanding, and diversity and 2) > historical purposes (although this is obviously the much weaker argument > from a developer support standpoint -- I'd totally agree with that). I'm > also sad to hear about the fate of mips(eb). :( > > 3) It's clear everyone in this thread is passionate about Debian, free > software, and in Adrian's case, passionate about keeping the unofficial > M68K port alive. This passion from everyone is certainly contagious. So > kudos to all of you. > > I hope Debian will reconsider providing at least a small part of the > funding and I'm positive the hobbyist community around M68K (as well as > other avenues) can come together for the rest. I believe by doing so, it > would show Debian doing things that prove itself as "the universal > operating system." > > I appreciate reading everyone's input regardless. I'll understand if > Debian still maintains it's decision to not approve such funding (although > I would certainly be disappointed). > > Thanks, > Brock > > On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 8:54 AM Aron Xu <a...@debian.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 7:58 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz >> <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >> > >> > > Regardless, I think you have your answer. >> > > Absent the appearance of significant new support, there is not >> > > sufficient interest in spending Debian funds on m68k gcc development. >> > >> > I don't think we have heard enough voices yet to be able to answer that >> > question. >> > >> >> Such work should indeed be funded by really interested parties, i.e. >> hardware vendors and their ecosystem partners. I'm not saying >> volunteers is out of the game, but look at mips(eb), we have retired >> the architecture entirely because we are not able to find enough >> investment on hardware and manpower to maintain it well, even if >> hardware is still easy to purchase, toolchain/kernel support is >> current. >> >> It could be a better idea to get more interested people to fund such >> work, but I don't see enough motivation to spend Debian money for a >> port that nobody else have interest in supporting its toolchain. >> >> Regards, >> Aron >> >>
