On 6/18/23 03:45, Rene Engelhard wrote:> Am 18.06.23 um 10:32 schrieb Rene Engelhard: >>>> I don't really like sweeping it under the carpet again and would >>>> actually pursue the "getting those architectures removed from unstable" >>>> way pointed out and (implicitely) approved/suggested by the release >>>> team... >>> You want Debian to drop support for all architectures except amd64 and >>> arm64 >>> because a single package doesn't pass its testsuite on the other >>> architectures? >> >> If the "porters" of those architectures don't care about the tests, yes, >> this would be the ultimate result. >> >> And as the release team agrees with me... > > Well, actually I was too tired still. But the tone from my initial mail > was quite clear. I know you WANT to misread that and I fell into that trap
No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_ removed, not getting libreoffice removed from those architectures. > Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable" > *for libreoffice*. This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for? https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/ When gcc switched to GPLv3 llvm appeared. When Samba switched to GPLv3 Apple wrote their own and Linux grew the ksmbd in-kernel server. Three years ago Samba maintainer Jeremy Allison lamented that "Both GPLv3 and the AGPL have been rejected soundly by most developers" and talked about how he regretted the move and the damage it had done to the project, https://archive.org/details/copyleftconf2020-allison How long has the problem you're treating as a crisis been brewing? Rob
