On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 09:06:31PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > On 06/22/2013 07:26 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > > * sparc: no working nflog (mild concern); no stable kernels in stable > > (compiling clisp for instance crashes the kernel reliably on smetana). We > > need to run sparc with oldstable kernels to provide stable machines. > > That's not an option for long. > > I think all machines except stadler and sompek are US IIIi machines. The > problem with US IIIi is, that sun never published the cpu specs - they would > have done it if somebody would have paid for the lawyers to look trough them > before publishing. US IIi support was implemented by a student working at SUN > under NDA and US IV and later was published. So I think if dropping (official) > support for US IIIi CPUs would keep the port alive, we should do that. Running > Debian on the more recent machines makes more sense anyway imho. The older > ones are nice, but they consume a loooot of power.
If you drop support for US II and IIIi, we basicly have 2 boxes left, of which one acts as sparc buildd and the other as sparc64 and sparc buildd. Those 2 boxes in their current state really can't keep up, specially since they're not stable at all when trying to use multiple cores. You would also be missing a porterbox. I thought the plan was to drop 32 bit support and move to sparc64? But that still doesn't seem to have moved to the Debian archive. Is there something holding back moving to sparc64? There is also Matthias Klose mail asking what to do with gcc. sparc is still on gcc-4.6 and I think he isn't willing to maintain that any longer. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ia64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130808173254.ga25...@roeckx.be
