LWN.net Logo

Debian to drop most architectures

Debian to drop most architectures

Posted Mar 15, 2005 4:17 UTC (Tue) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803)
In reply to: Debian to drop most architectures by alspnost
Parent article: Debian proposes dropping most architectures

I guess the difference between Gentoo and Debian is that Gentoo is not "held up" for years while waiting for something to get fixed on an obscure architecture. The "stability flag" of each package (stable, testing, unstable) is separate for each architecture supported by Gentoo. So a package can be stable on x86 and testing on AMD64, or testing on x86 and unstable on IA64.

When a package is deemed "ready" for any given arch, it is moved to stable for that arch. As long as Gentoo has maintainers for any given architecture, especially if they're not likely to want to maintain more popular archs, it should be retained.


(Log in to post comments)

Gentoo's archs

Posted Mar 15, 2005 10:10 UTC (Tue) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

Very good points about the Gentoo archs. There's another to be made in
this context, however, that being that even the various main Gentoo archs
aren't "release locked" to each other. That is, each arch can release on
its own schedule. In practice, Gentoo x86 sets the main release schedule
and the other archs normally target the same schedule, but there's nothing
saying it /has/ to be that way. The individual archs can release as they
see fit -- it's only the benefit of the larger PR draw of the coordinated
releases that keeps most of the others (by choice) to the same schedule.

An example is my own arch, amd64. Where Gentoo main, that is x86, went
from four quarterly releases in 2004, 2004.0-2004.3, to a semi-annual
release cycle for 2005, 2005.0 and 2005.1, amd64 had originally planned to
stay with the four release schedule. As it so happens, a release-stopping
hiccup with 2005.0 (on amd64) has it delayed to only now getting close to
formal release (I believe there was a similar one for x86, but haven't
tracked it as closely so don't know its current status, and with a 6-month
window, it's still safely within window and will be for some time yet),
now, in mid-March, which means they'll likely only get three release
snapshots out this year, but anyway...

Of course, the other even BIGGER difference is the emphasis placed on
releases. With Gentoo, "releases" are fairly stable and well tested
snapshots of the living release tree taken at a specific time, with any
changes necessary as discovered during testing, with binary packages
available and designed to be convenient starting points for a new install.
Once a Gentoo installation is accomplished, the system is designed for
more or less constant updating as the packages become available and marked
either stable (arch) or unstable (~arch), as chosen by the local
installation admin. Other than occasional profile updates where somewhat
larger changes may be instituted (a switch from gcc-3.3 to 3.4, as the
default, or from a default 2.4 to 2.6 kernel and headers), if said changes
are considered disruptive on a normal install and therefore likely profile
masked, the system is designed to be kept up to date on a more or less
weekly basis, daily being possible for those that want it. Even profile
changes are generally less hectic than release upgrades on most binary
targeted distributions, where almost the entire system changes at once.
With Gentoo, once installed, there's really little reason to worry about
releases at all, because the updates are done on a routine basis, not as
part of a massive release update.

That is of course one of the reasons I like the Gentoo system.

Duncan

Gentoo's archs

Posted Mar 15, 2005 15:53 UTC (Tue) by jdv (subscriber, #712) [Link]

There's another to be made in this context, however, that being that even the various main Gentoo archs aren't "release locked" to each other. That is, each arch can release on its own schedule.

Imho, that is more or less what is now being proposed for debian. Well, except for the four or so most important archs, which remain locked.

Gentoo's archs

Posted Mar 15, 2005 18:14 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

check again, the secondary archs will get 'snapshot' releases, not full releases with security support.

there's a huge difference between the two.

Gentoo's archs

Posted Mar 15, 2005 21:25 UTC (Tue) by jdv (subscriber, #712) [Link]

Right, I misread -- I assumed that those snapshot releases would be more like real releases, but it would seem that is not true. Hopefully, a seperate community effort could pick up the pieces, though, and make a real stable distribution out of it, security support and all.

Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds