[Debian-ppc64-devel] is this port alife?

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:11:56AM +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Nov-04 10:03, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The real problem is that you refuse to play nicely with the rest of the
> > powerpc/powerpc64 debian porters, and insist of going your own way. I believe
> 
> Sven, please stop these accusations. I am just trying to 
> create and maintain a native ppc64 port because I like the idea
> of having a clean 64-bit environment. What is so bad about that?

Well, sure, but you are not working together or in the interest of debian on
this issue, and are doing your own personal debian fork, and clearly claimed
you had no interest to work on either a biarch or multi-arch solution.

> I posted patches for the native ppc64 port to the Debian BTS where
> they where discussed publicly. Most of the patches were accepted
> by the respective packages maintainers. Generally, the package 
> maintainers were very helpful and tried to make their package work
> for the ppc64 port like for any other port.

Sure, but what i reproach you is that you approached them maskerading as *the*
ppc64 debian porter, while you had no authority to do so, and didn't discuss
anything with anyone involved.

> Up to now you are the only package maintainer who refuses to
> make his packages work for ppc64. I understand that you are using 
> your position as a package maintainer to actively prevent the 
> creation of a native ppc64 port for Debian. 

Please, approach the ftp-masters to include your ppc64 stuff into the debian
archive, and once you have had success with that we can speak again.

> I cannot do anything about that besides using a patched package version 
> for the native ppc64 archive. However, I hope that you consider to 
> change your mind and let me try to complete the native ppc64 port
> while you try to find a different way to support 64-bit applications
> on ppc64 hardware in Debian. Let's see which approach works better.

Whatever, it remains a private fork, not debian.

> > that 64bit binaries have an interest either in the case of a partial
> > multi-arch archive, or as biarch 64bit libraries, but you clearly said you are
> > interested in none of the above.
> 
> I firmly believe that those two approaches (the creation of a _partial_ 
> multiarch archive and the biarch library approach) will both fail. 

Yeah, whatever, especially as you don't participate in them. Again, if you
want to be debian/ppc64, go and ask the ftp-masters for inclusion of the
archive, i will sure watch the show with pop-corn ready and all :)

> People have tried to set up things like that for other architectures 
> without any success so far. Multiarch may work in the end, but a 
> full native 64-bit port will be necessary to build the 64-bit packages 
> for multiarch installations.

A partial 64bit archive is enough, as we have now a biarch/multiarch friendly
toolchain.

So, either join in the effort to have something *IN* debian for the etch
release, lobby the ftp-master for inclusion of your port for etch, or stop
claiming to be an official ppc64 debian port.

Friendly,

Sven Luther