From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT) > From: Kjetil Oftedal <oftedal@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:03:30 +0200 > >> On 19/09/2017, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 09/19/2017 10:24 PM, David Miller wrote: >>>> davem@patience:~/src/GIT/sparc-next$ dpkg -S /usr/sbin/prtconf >>>> sparc-utils: /usr/sbin/prtconf >>>> >>>> Come again? >>> >>> David, seriously, are you arguing about Debian packages with me? >>> >>> sparc-utils is part of the *unreleased* distribution because *I* >>> put it there. *unreleased* is *not* an official part of Debian. >>> >>> sparc-utils is *not* part of Debian unstable. >>> >>> Adrian >>> >> >> Actually, sparc-utils was a part of wheezy/stable before Debian decided >> to drop the official SPARC port. > > What a relief, some sanity, _THANK_ _YOU_. And btw this really sounds like a _disincentive_ to use the current sparc64 debian port, if useful utilities are being removed from the primary sparc64 set of packages like this. I keep hearing about how I am getting in the way of users making use of the sparc64 port. But honestly I haven't done things like remove core utilities or anything like that. The worst thing I might have done is given it a lot of bad press because I still to this day thing that using a default of 64-bits for all userland utilities is a huge mistake. And that for performance reasons 32-bit should be the default, and things like databases and what--have-you should be built 64-bit on a case by case basis. This is why I won't upgrade and I'll keep kicking the tires on my ancient debian sparc installs. Maybe other people see things the similarly to how I do, and share some of my opinions, and that's at least part of the real reason sparc64/debian doesn't have a lot of uptake. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
