Andreas Tille wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 07:41:51AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: >> I think one would be surprised how many packages get used on 'exotic' >> architectures. Most users don't specifically search for a piece of >> software, they want to have some specific task done by using a specific >> package. Not providing the package will only mean that the user either >> uses another package or does not get the task done. > > Well, I do not think that you can do gene sequencing or number crunching > on current mobile phones. So there are really programs which are not > needed on all architectures and even if you find a binary package which > claims to do the job it is just useless. Even if I agree with your > arguing that each program at least theoretically should build on any > architecture (if not it is a bug) in some cases it looks foolish to > provide binary packages just for the sake of it. This is was Charles > meant when he wrote: We should trust the maintainer if a specific > program is not needed for a certain architecture. > >> Slow architectures are dying otherwise there would get new chipsets >> built that are faster IMHO. > > There are architectures for different issues. There are issues which > allways need the fastest available architecture and there are other > needs which are targeting at low power consumption etc. We should > probably not put a large effort on a theoretical option which is never > used in real live (and I mean a reall *never* not only low chances).
That is what I meant. There are users of openoffice.org on armel and mipsel, so it's not at all theoretical even if one would think differently from a first look. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
