> > We project that applying these rules for etch will reduce the set of > > candidate architectures from 11 to approximately 4 (i386, powerpc, ia64 > > and amd64 -- which will be added after sarge's release when mirror space > > no sparc here. > > After speaking to Andreas Barth, asking, why sparc might become SCC, he > pointed my to the last release update where it says: > > | It's for this reason that all architectures are > | required to be synced to the same kernel version for sarge, but even so, > | more per-architecture kernel help is needed, particularly for the sparc > | and the arm port. > > So we seem to have a lack of sparc kernel hackers/developers. > I myself are using Debian on sparc very much, but do not have the > knowledge with sparc kernels to help here. I know a little and would be willing to help if it meant that sparc would stay a 'first class citizen'. I don't have much time but I suspect that a little time given to helping Debian/SPARC would be better than having to port everything I run to a different distro / UNIX just to have consistancy.
> The only thing i could do here is testing, testing, testing... > > > - 5 developers who will use or work on the port must send in > > signed requests for its addition > > > > - the port must demonstrate that they have at least 50 users > > That should be possible somehow. Guess so. Is there anyone 'in charge' of the Debian/sparc port or anyone co-ordinating the fight to keep Debian/sparc a live port? Cheers, - Martin -- Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Seasons change, things come to pass" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]