> In any case, given the number of prospective ports waiting in the > wings, 11 is probably a roughly correct estimate even if we *do* drop > some architectures. (And since non-release ports are likely to stay > in unstable, and adding a release port adds three w-b databases where > dropping one only removes two w-b databases, it takes 1 1/2 dropped > archs to balance one added arch...)
in all those debates about the lack of buildds, sth seems odd to me. I've always thought that moore's law was quite accurate... and my understanding (I may be wrong, it's only how I understand the whole thing) is that debian growth is quite linear, compared to the cpu speed, disk size, BW ... growth, the time passing, we should have less and less limitations. I'm aware that more's law is not appliable on some archs (like arm I believe) but the question is, well, who uses openoffice.org or kde on an arm (only to cite those) ? In fact, the point is, I don't understand how hardware limitations are really possible. I understand fully that many ports needs *a lot* of work for porters/security teams (it's a pity human brains does not follow moore's law) ... but I find hard to believe that hardware is the reason why we cannot manage many arches. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpdaVPkl87ui.pgp
Description: PGP signature
