Future of Ac... or even of PLD [lang: PL]

[Paweł Sikora]

Marcin Król napisał(a):

> I would like to see following changes in Ac 2.1:
> 
> New software, so called "hot stuff", but stable versions only. Most
> requested ones are:
 > - newer glibc (death sentence for i386 architecture)
> - gcc 4.1.x

ac od th odcina glownie abi c++. na ac/g++3.3.6 nie mnozna wprost
uruchomic nic co dziala na dystrybucjach zgodnych z lsb-3.x
- http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB_Distribution_Status -
czyli wymagajacych g++ >= 3.4. zmiana kompilatora w ac pociagnie
za soba zassanie latek *-gcc4.x z th i przebudowanie wiekszosci
rzeczy. obecny RM narzucil juz th kaganiec stabilizacji, wiec nie
widze sensu trasformacji ac w th - szkoda zasobow bialkowych.

> Why to delete alpha, sparc? Those two are most problematic ones and
> barely few people are using them. There were many situation where some
> updates were nailed by failing alpha/sparc build and there were no
> volunteers to fix them. If someone wants alpha/sparc, he may unoficially
> maintain those architectures, but keeping them out of official support
> will ensure that "architecture blockers" will not cause us problems anymore.

ztcw, to w ramach th jakies chroot-y sparc-owe ktos utrzymuje/kombinuje.
ja sam jeszcze do niedawna utrzymywalem takie core-th-alpha ( glibc,
gcc-4.1, rpm, poldek, etc. ), zeby w razie potrzeby chetni mieli baze
do zbudowania reszty pakietow. niestety ostatno  chroot-alpha w fly
sie wzial i wyparowal :/

> I realize that whole idea may die due to lack of developers interested
> in maintaining the Th-like Ac.  However I want to hear your opinions,
> comments, suggestions.

juz raz z ac zrobilismy th, po co robic to drugi raz na AC-branch?