On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 07:25:17PM +0200, Thibaut VARENE wrote: > > On 6/17/2008, "Domenico Andreoli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 05:03:59PM +0200, Thibaut VARENE wrote: > >> > >> Yet that doesn't change anything to the fact that the port is nowadays > >> clearly lacking manpower. The very few people actually doing work on the > >> port have unfortunately less and less time on their hands (I for one can > >> just keep up with my own chores, not much more), and we have no "fresh > >> blood" coming in to contribute. *That* is a problem... > > > >My idea of the problem is that PA-RISC is a dead architecture. Why "fresh > >blood" should invest on a dead horse? I would be glad to help but I need > >to invest more and more time for what? Maybe the glory to have helped > >PA-RISC live another couple of years and maybe a release cycle? Really? > > I don't blame you for saying that, but it seemed to me that Debian > (contrary to some other well known derivative) wasn't focusing only on > "lively" architectures and allowed "dead" ones to get a second life. > And it's not as if PA-RISC machines had only the horsepower of some > high end m68k box... ;P
I never said Debian should drop hppa because of this. If these conditions had happened, say, 5 years ago I would have surely taken the opportunity. I would be very happy to have the spare time but I have not and I have to choose. PA-RISC has not a future, it has only present now. > Anyway, I'm afraid you're just stating a general feeling. I rarely am right :) cheers, Domenico -----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://www.dandreoli.com/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
