Linked by John Mills on Tue 13th Feb 2007 21:49 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 212650
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Sad but not unexpected
by ralph on Wed 14th Feb 2007 15:41
in reply to "RE[3]: Sad but not unexpected"
RE[5]: Sad but not unexpected
by Janizary on Wed 14th Feb 2007 18:47
in reply to "RE[4]: Sad but not unexpected"
RE[4]: Sad but not unexpected
by Syntaxis on Wed 14th Feb 2007 19:20
in reply to "RE[3]: Sad but not unexpected"
That's not true. See the Debian Release Manager's clarification at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/03/msg01167.html - the requirement to which you refer actually means "must be able to replace machines that fail". That's not very onerous to satisfy - heck, even the m68k architecture meets that particular criterion.
RE[4]: Sad but not unexpected
by Phloptical on Thu 15th Feb 2007 00:21
in reply to "RE[3]: Sad but not unexpected"






Member since:
2006-07-16
Actually, Debian will drop it soon or at least move it to second-class citizen status. They adopted a policy for Etch of only supporting hardware that is commercially available, so there may not be an official release for PPC after Etch.