On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas <zo...@debian.org>wrote:
> Hi, > > On Wed May 16, 2012 at 13:19:48 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > Hi, > > > > With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears, > > we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release > > architectures for the Wheezy release. > > > > Comments on / additions and corrections to the content of > > http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html would be appreciated, > > as would any other information you think is relevant to helping us > > determine sparc's status for the release. > > with my DSA hat on: > > We no longer have an UltraSparc II porterbox, and we are considering > decommissioning our single remaining UltraSparc II buildd machine. > > That's probably not the worst idea -- there are faster sparc boxes to build on. > Maybe it would be a good idea to officially drop US II support from > wheezy since we won't have hardware to test issues on. > > I don't understand the implications here. Wheezy works great on two US-II machines that I know of. Does "dropping support" mean ignoring bug reports if the CPU == US-II? Does it mean rendering the kernel unbootable on US-II machines? Does it mean building code with US-III extensions at all times? Why would this be necessary? I run Debian on a Pentium II since it is a 686-class CPU, but I wouldn't build the universe on it. Does build hardware == only means of support? If so, I'm sure I have an 8-CPU US-II system that can have a home anywhere that it is useful at, and it should be relatively competitive with a dual US-III as far as build speed. Patrick
