I think this is getting ridiculous. How did we get from XY was compiled for one architecture by someone who made XY available in his own repo to we should drop support for [random but common other architecture] for all of devuan?
Devuan offers a sane alternative to debian without systemd, it is what debian should have been. Since most packages come from debian anyway, without any need to recompile them, there is no extra time or resources needed to support those on other architectures which are already supported by debian. And for the remaining packages which had to be repackaged, I strongly assume that most of them had architecture any or all specified in their debian control file, which means that the CI can build all architectures at once anyway, which means that repackaging them for multiple architectures doesn't constitute significantly more work then packaging them for one architecture. Considering all this, from my perspective, arguing that an architecture is obsolete or not used anyways is pointless since it doesn't improve anything, it doesn't free any time or resources, but it does harm any user of the architecture to be dropped, and it would harm devuan as a whole since it would result in inferior hardware support compared to debian. That said, that someone who provides his own repos and therefore can't use the devuan CI thing may not want or have the time to setup the infrastructure to cross compile his packages for every architecture is quiet understandable. When using someone elses repository, that not every architecture may be provided has to be expected. I don't see any problem here at all. However, there is always room for improvement, and since it appears to me that the problem isn't that the packages in question can't be compiled for other architectures, I would leave the following suggestion to the package maintainer and the devuan team for consideration: Just put the packages in experimental. This way, the CI can just compile it for all architectures, and everyone is happy again. Daniel Abrecht On 2017-07-21 21:01, Dragan FOSS wrote: > On 07/21/2017 09:02 PM, goli...@dyne.org wrote: >> <AntoFox> Cinnamon 3.0.x (only amd64) > > I think it's best to drop 32-bit support at all... it's such a waste of > time and resources. > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng