On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 02:28 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:01:55PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
[...]
I have not heard from the ppc64el porters, but I suspect ppc64 will
not be a release arch. So you need to take into consideration that for powerpc to remain a release arch, one need minimal working ppc64 port. Could we solve the situation of ppc64 for Stretch, could it be moved
to official release arch ?
What would you need ppc64 for? Unlike i386, powerpc includes 64-bit kernels so users don't need multiarch:
[...]
This is only the case because ppc64 has a lower level of support
(unofficial port) than powerpc (release architecture). The 64-bit
kernel package should be dropped once powerpc is at the same or lower
level of support than ppc64 - just as we've done for i386, s390 and
sparc.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Klipstein's 4th Law of Prototyping and Production: A fail-safe circuit will destroy
others.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIcBAABCgAGBQJX76lEAAoJEOe/yOyVhhEJ7g8P/0RNbw8XhgUKxkam9g/q3Ezv wZlUF4k6BHzr8wAaAGq/F97nNEAn1+Sa8yxnm1ariW2q1Ck88tDySmHDqLWrH4az RyG1BiAr9Tg1qfvkE4hjVrYk4iS+JdyYMyl/78uq4gLQuix/FIGwj4wWn7ohRyBp 35sR5P3nrKzOD9TJRMX1swdq/GQkVaX0dR7PyaQrsEx8dUbaOnz/DdK3EVIPRn4j FK3SDNA/ajfEYs0zk/CCJaeRSZBdnqtWYRSnE56jfsM0A/j7QVLF3sCccwNcOjuO 9flEj8nJTkNqEDjSl7st9QW+g5DLE5aDF/5h1AmUFCd2lpVx1IwkvkKgmp//EUlS 2eCxzXSUG2IOuqyWGLL2R1AiOFxM6v8CgHTyzr1x6tcGYcp4VzK6rP46BOLbk/4M /mPxIb0KH9FP3VPGDQ6/W9TqhLNt8TJVQVc19Sjb1Z415uZtL2k+UcRW0JEbxuSG SoiNd9PChx7ZcAv998dcQnj/93eq6dxs4mYtD/L5MPDUOkx9uqHH1elD3LA+qinA 6cGOlFNL8WLgwArbCAYPG9A+6obzQtK/TSJjZRQeQv3UOczNcxryM88ZVcbGLX9e fYw2pUvw+cS8Ey05qSFwjCY4J5BNwl+0V//DCMY2nPpWYmvzMSlwvp9eT6LeqEqj GvscPparES6C6R8HuY4J
=hTxP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- SoupGate-Win