Re: Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky)

"Diederik de Haas" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.debian.ports.powerpc
Message-ID <DDU17XR9BBV6.ZHSO18EVGO7T__36892.1166796767$1761662857$gmane$org@cknow.org>
On Tue Oct 28, 2025 at 3:03 PM CET, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 03:00:24PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote:
>>On Tue Oct 28, 2025 at 10:07 AM CET, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 09:59:11AM +0100, Romain Dolbeau wrote:
>>>> Planned obsolescence is bad, not good.
>>>
>>> Still, Debian has to rely on stable support in kernel and toolchain.
>>> Once kernel and toolchain stop supporting¹ an architecture there is
>>> nothing that Debian could do about that with its limited personpower and
>>> resources.
>>
>>The kernel and/or toolchain dropping support is a valid argument IMO.
>>Dropping support because 7/8/10/15 years have passed is not.
>>Some 'random' other distro dropping support is (IMO) not a valid
>>argument in itself. Maybe their reasons behind dropping it, is.
>
> The problem is that Bastian has a point here in wanting to announce that 
> YEARS in advance, but toolchain/kernel usually having a much shorter 
> horzion. So, when we want to guess what they're going to do we have to 
> be really careful and err to the conservative side.

I think announcing at the beginning of a new release cycle that release
X (in this case Forky) will be the last that architecture X will be
supported, is great. Then people who are interested/invested in it have
~2 years to prepare for it.

When it comes to kernel support, I'm quite sure Arnd Bergmann announces
dropping support for (device) X *years* in advance, so that does NOT
happen overnight. (With their spring/autumn announcement/summary IIRC)

As said before, I think those are substantive arguments.

My problem is that I have mostly seen imaginary or theoretical
arguments. I would be fine with an argument where I think "that makes
sense" (even though I may not be happy about it). Just arbitrary amount
of years have passed or "people should not be using that anymore". 
To which my response is: "Why not? If it still works?"

Cheers,
  Diederik
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 228 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHQEABYKAB0WIQT1sUPBYsyGmi4usy/XblvOeH7bbgUCaQDV9gAKCRDXblvOeH7b
bjRrAPjsQkMbS8U0z7WjbC7pZ04Yki4Xm02A1Umks85OOBOAAQD80sz9GRn+x3CZ
2geKz/4lJSN7EgniJ909YvZI9blKAQ==
=CzBX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.