Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Are you saying that technical choices do not contribute to the success >> of Canonical? For instance, deciding to target the distribution at >> most popular architectures only? > > Supporting a reduced range of both targets and software makes life > slightly easier, yes. But I've no especially good reason to believe that > they'd be less successful if they had a slightly larger staff and > supported all our architectures. Setting up build daemon seems to be easy. Finding skilled people with some old architecture is not that easy. Supporting old architectures also means helping developers with arch-specific bugs.
> It's not the technical issues with supporting multiple architectures > that give us problems - it's the social issues surrounding access to > buildds, incorporation into architectures, people failing to fix > architecture specific bugs, people demanding that people fix > architecture specific bugs, that sort of thing. It's undoubtedly true > that we could release slightly faster with fewer architectures, but it's > also true that we'd find something else to argue about in order to > remove any advantage. As long as someone is interested in porting to a given architecture, there is no reason not to support it. The question is whether developers have to carry the burden. In other words, it doesn't have to necessarily be release-candidate. >> I'd be insterested in hearing your point of view on the technical >> flaws as well. > > In Debian? I think what technical flaws there are are masked by other > problems. We're actually spectacularly good at dealing with technical > issues in comparison to most distributions. Agreed. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
