Wilko Bulte wrote: > On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:12:49PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > >>On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:31:56PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: >> >> >>>As with Alpha, >>>the fate of a platform rests on the people who are willing to work on >>>it, not on whether it is in a particular list. >> >>Agreed, but it's the projects responsibility to take the tierness and >>the intend to support multiple platforms serious and not to chicken out >>at the first signs of complications or hurdles. We labeled sparc64 as >>a tier 1 platform and we better deal with the consequences. >> >>As for alpha, we don't even seem to be able to degrade it to tier 2 >>without losing face. kris_at_ has already stopped package builds for it >>for his own sake. >> >>Wake up, people. This is quickly becoming a joke... > > > Right... > > <dons flak jacket> > > Basically only i386 is a Tier 1. The rest is a joke if it is called Tier 1. > If only because there are insufficient numbers of committers actively > working on the arch. > > (maybe pc98 should be called Tier 1, I just don't know enough about that > one). > > amd64 is approaching critical mass for tier-1. There are a number of developers that own amd64 hardware now, and a number of users who are asking about it on the mailing lists. Peter is finishing up the last blocking item for it (kld's) not including the observed KSE problems. It's very close and I _will_ hold up the release for it to get done. amd64 is the future of commodity computing and we aren't going to ignore it for 5-STABLE. ScottReceived on Sun Jun 06 2004 - 12:50:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:56 UTC