Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Ben Hutchings <[email protected]> Sat, 01 Oct 2016 13:17:08 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.ports.mips
Message-ID	<1475324228.2632.64.camel__11627.973142504$1475324312$gmane$org@decadent.org.uk>

On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 02:28 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:01:55PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
[...]
> > I have not heard from the ppc64el porters, but I suspect ppc64 will
> > not be a release arch. So you need to take into consideration that for
> > powerpc to remain a release arch, one need minimal working ppc64 port.
> > Could we solve the situation of ppc64 for Stretch, could it be moved
> > to official release arch ?
> 
> What would you need ppc64 for?  Unlike i386, powerpc includes 64-bit
> kernels so users don't need multiarch:
[...]

This is only the case because ppc64 has a lower level of support
(unofficial port) than powerpc (release architecture).  The 64-bit
kernel package should be dropped once powerpc is at the same or lower
level of support than ppc64 - just as we've done for i386, s390 and
sparc.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Klipstein's 4th Law of Prototyping and Production:
                                    A fail-safe circuit will destroy
others.

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 801 B)