Re: Debian-Med policy proposal: 64-bit & little-endian only* for new packages

On Thursday, March 28, 2024 8:51:01 A.M. CDT Michael R. Crusoe wrote:

> Therefore I personally conclude that:
> Support Debian-Med packages for 32-bit and/or big-endian architectures is
> not a good use of our limited resources.

I've used that as a personal policy for years.

In my case, I restrict the architecture set ONLY when maintaining all 
architectures becomes a burden.  So far it has happened only in one package 
(ITK), and its downstream dependencies.

I am left with a question whether that is what you are proposing, or whether 
you mean to preemptively restrict the architectures even when they are not 
troublesome?  I would support the former but the latter position seems 
unwarranted to me.

> Like all policy proposals, this is not meant to be a hard rule for all time.
> We can and should revisit the issue later!

Absolutely.  The working set of machines does change over time as you mention 
yourself.  I remember doing neuroinformatics research coding on SGI IRIX 
machines -- which will surely date me.  :-)
 
-Steve

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=uoHY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----