Re: Debian-Med policy proposal: 64-bit & little-endian only* for new packages
Diane Trout <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.medical |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 2024-03-28 at 14:51 +0100, Michael R. Crusoe wrote: > > Like all policy proposals, this is not meant to be a hard rule for > all time. We can and should revisit the issue later! What do you think of the policy being instead of "-med team packages MUST support all current Debian architectures", "-med team packages (CAN or SHOULD) try to support all current Debian architectures." Many packages do work fine, but some make no sense without being able to access much more than 4G of memory or have picky CPU architecture dependencies. I don't think the team should automatically turn off all more obscure architectures, but it seems very reasonable to be quite willing disable builds for things that cause problems outside of x86_64/arm64. Diane
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEETQVcMeSBIEX5AQ11mQ04NnM013AFAmYHVgwACgkQmQ04NnM0 13C0mA//WD7yXTNKPYazWgK88Gzf0/ewplwI2EalDrjBNI8IuqrQf3mKAxn4Hx0e GSwWyqoxk+deuhQeSY5UnShkkd/vS/l1wc0Fltg/zd56aqmue86NR+sCfw8x35VY p/9SEOQIXiPiNKS9ZzhCOARpYbQ2/JNefkJVfB38EDF+0ErzT6+dQavzJ+4woWPe VzYrI7FaVWU+q6JOARrC2zA7ztDa5hdQp64WkqU/bOD+dssd8LnZ/tTtRYlTuWJr qGyTdrY+tD/ex9TTWL9WXdKX+p8n4FSaFf26z0Q7HW5bhEpzXgdP5lOFsPQj6b/s RgTHpbdEIQ6S72DmgNnksil3aUaQXkQsN0dmD0hVpjMFJ2FyUs9UlEf+6ag2sNbK zbqnyP1gJDQ9tv5Y5qaoG417BB7lxKavUI3E2okVgGdodSBT2CvX30FMKJHhOQry x7CyXkuWtVtkKJ1U2QwvpTr9OFXEg4HG+KoRb6me2zryQSWtX/BHKuyrT7/nxavS 08XdyfexD6aUYERcR2OiXdLDWN1RlWmbO3lHXUgzjXqIO7qfiBuLq/BNTNcLXrp8 RsUbeXyNiGcFd4IwV4CEaj5OO7uzq9h5dqk0WfyUu3lpNuSStDrYDvA/pylVSKOZ i3zI7VpFV2+MC9tI0IDCcyuPKn4j068HM3Br473z/KuLIWSAsD4= =P8gJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----