| 1 |
Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> posted 48EA6FF2.8020201@g.o, |
| 2 |
excerpted below, on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:07:14 -0500: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> AFAIK, it is incorrect right now to exclude s390, arm, sh, etc on |
| 5 |
> stablereqs right now..But, I ask this question to the dev community: |
| 6 |
> "Why?" There are ~190 open bugs with s390 as assignee or on the CC list. |
| 7 |
> Does it *really* matter if these under-staffed "odd" arches have a |
| 8 |
> stable tree or not? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Having been an amd64 user back when it was much smaller, and having |
| 11 |
followed the previous discussion on this here, including the mips -> |
| 12 |
experimental move, yes, it does matter. With the bugs there's at least |
| 13 |
some info on a package and its stabilization potential when/if someone |
| 14 |
gets around to doing something about it. Without them, the job of |
| 15 |
bringing them back to unsupported and then to full supported, if there's |
| 16 |
suddenly a leap in interest, becomes much harder as there's that much |
| 17 |
less info on what /was/ stable at one point, and on anything in the ~arch |
| 18 |
versions that might need checked before they go stable again. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
So it matters; there's a practical reason for it. However, that's not |
| 21 |
the same as saying it's the overall best solution at this time. I have |
| 22 |
no opinion on that, particularly as I /personally/ prefer ~arch in any |
| 23 |
case. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 27 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 28 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives