Re: PowerPC buildd is looking for a new home
> |> Why not ?
> |
> |Because the sky is not violet today.
>
> What a rediculous, senseless answer!
> Unbelieveable bad! I never did expect things like
> this in a project like debian. You seriously
> should think about your positions.
</lurk> <rant>
Oh thanks a lot, guys! Popping back into -powerpc to check what's new, and
it's the same old flaming and name-calling. Sheesh. I'm just glad Dan
doesn't read -powerpc anymore. Asking a simple but rather important
question, and seeing people go off on various tangents on unrelated
topics...
</rant>
Re: hosting voltaire: if it could be shipped to Europe, I could host it
temporarily (couple of months for sure; any longer and I need to make
arrangements with my former lab mates) in the same server room that hosts
four m68k buildds already. I rather prefer another solution is found.
Re: senseless answer: I have rarely seen Joey lose his temper with silly
questions (and I've asked a few of these in my time), but rehashing a long
dead topic once again does apparently do it. The debate on multiarch
support on powerpc has been going on for a while FWIR, and neither
powerpc64 nor ppc64 have found sufficient support to be included as
official port. To my recollection, BenH has explained that 64 bit userland
for all applications is a waste of resources (most programs will even run
slower), and 64 bit app support in biarch mode was vetoed. multiarch
support wasn't possible with the etch toolchain IIRC (my recollection is
a bit fuzzy) - if there is demand for it, it should be implemented within
the official powerpc port.
Re: other tangents: Yes, it sometimes looks like there is a cabal.
Honestly, I do not care. I do hope the request tracker helps to get
things resolved in a more precictable way. State good reasons for why and
how multiarch 64 bit userland can be done (and, perhaps, have some proof
of concept to show).
<lurk>
Michael
Reply to: