On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 12:26:08PM +0100, Alban Vidal wrote: > Package: www.debian.org >... > ----- > > Bellow the list of officials portages: > - amd64 > - arm64 > - armel > - armhf > - i386 > - mipsel > - mips64el > - ppc64el > - s390x >... > [1] https://www.debian.org/ports/ >...
Removing mips from the list of official ports is wrong. As of Debian 10 mips is an official release architecture that will continue to be supported in this release. For our users the most relevant information is what is supported in the current stable release, not whatever changes might happen in future releases. Release architectures for Debian 11 are not yet decided, further changes might happen and in theory it is even possible that someone starts working on keeping mips as release architecture. It has happened before that a port was discontinued but later restarted by other people. > ----- > > Bellow the list of unofficials portages: > - alpha > - arm > - AVR32 > - hppa > - hurd-i386 > - ia64 > - kfreebsd-amd64 > - kfreebsd-i386 > - m32r > - m68k > - mips > - netbsd-i386 > - netbsd-alpha > - or1k > - powerpc > - powerpcspe > - riscv64 > - s390 > - sparc > - sparc64 > - sh4 > - x32 >... > [1] https://www.debian.org/ports/ >... This list does not contain all ports that autobuild unstable as of today, and the status of several ports is incorrect. The current non-release architectures are the "Hosted Architectures" listed at https://www.ports.debian.org/ "discontinued" and "dead" seem to be different words for the same. "in progress" is poor wording for ports that are not aiming at (again) becoming release architectures, the most common term I am aware of would be "non-release architecture". ftpmas...@ports-master.debian.org (added to Cc) is the correct contact for discussing the status of ports that are not part of Debian 10. > Bests regards, > Alban >... cu Adrian
