Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] State of x86_64^Wppc

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] State of x86_64^Wppc
  • Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 18:55:40 -0600

On Nov 30, Eric Sandall [eric AT sandall.us] wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> <snip>
> >> As the total lack of testing the ppc ISOs are getting shows (The first
> >> person to run through a total install with them was a new user), making
> >> not-
> >> so-common architectures work is often quite hard simply because "you
> >> have no
> >> clue if the thing actually works".
> >
> > It seems to me that we have quite a few more people actively asking
> > about/using/patching x86_64 than ppc, but maybe the ppc people are the
> > silent majority.
>
> To me, the reason PPC is higher than x86_64 is that we've supported
> PPC for years now and I don't want to 'regress' by dropping support
> for our users on that platform (who may just not be on the lists, IRC,
> or are quiet). Our LUG has two PPC boxes (OldWorld), but David Brown
> and I haven't had much time to play with them.

I don't *want* to see us regress by dropping support either, but I think in
reality we already have dropped support, at least temporarily. It seems
pretty apparent by now we don't have the resources to cover all the tasks
we've established for ourselves in the timelines we want to reach. We need
to decide if the higher priority is keeping ppc support OR holding to a 1.0
in the next 4-5 months and just getting that done by the ISO roadmap. As a
matter of simple fact we won't manage both.

We need a decision on this.

Attachment: pgp8sAyRE9w2F.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page