Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:06:18PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > * Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 23:00]: > > > But really, is there much benefit in making *releases* for the SCC > > > architectures? > > > > For some SSC arches, it *might* not make a difference (possibly m68k) > > but others (e.g. s390 and mipsel) are typically used for servers > > or gateways, and you don't really want to run unstable in such > > environments. testing+security updates might be a compromise, but > > unstable is clearly not an option for a S390 box or a mipsel Cobalt > > gateway. > > OK, that makes sense. Can you buy those architectures new? (Surely yes > in the case of s390 at least, probably mipsel also as the mips CPU > manufacturers are alive and well.)
AFAIK m68k is the only one which isn't available anymore, unless you count its mmu-less variants in. > If those architectures meet the criteria, they would be included in > the release. The announcement anticipated 4 arches meeting the criteria > for etch but didn't set that as a limit. With the 10% quorum etch will have 1-2 architectures. > I guess the <= 2 buildds requirement might be an issue for the embedded > CPUs like mips as unstable continues to grow. AFAICS the criterion was > 2 buildd. (And even a single mips/mipsel machine would be enough to keep up if it was one of those high-end dualcore/quadcore embedded systems.) Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
