> Our users. Not our users of the most popular > architectures. _all_ our users.
Please! Your last justification "we do it because it floats our boat, not for the users" was at least honest. One of your $250 hours would do more for "_all_ our users" if spent on a i386 than on 68k. This simple, irrefutable fact does not make 68k users "second class citizens". If you want to argue this, you need to go back to the original metaphor and explain why obscure diseases deserve as much funding as those affecting large fractions of the population. > Do you know what motivates the developers? I would certainly think so, since I am one professionally. And I (and I strongly suspect most other developers) get a much bigger kick out of doing something new that out of doing something old on an obscure platform. > Debian leadership? The project leader has no say in deciding > what architectures one releases. "No say?" That is flat-out wrong. The PL and RM may not decide alone, but they most certainly have a say, and a large one, in what architectures are supported. Most packagers will say "okay" to any proposed architecture (or at least would have in the past, before the woody debacle) because most packagers support relatively architecture-independent code. What seems to have been missed is that the few heavily architecture-dependent packages (e.g. XFree86) and the support infrastructure for the new architectures would hold up the whole show. It is precisely the role of the PL, RM, and other "meta-packagers" to recognize such structural problems and draw appropriate conclusions. Certainly the appropriate conclusion wouldn't be to "ban" any 68k package someone wants to produce. But it would be to say we will not freeze the whole damn distribution while we wait for them and the infrastructure they require. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
