* David Weinehall (tao@debian.org) wrote: > I kind of suspect some people have been reading 1984 too many times, > considering the amount of conspiracy theories that are weathered ever > so often on various Debian-lists... There is no conspiracy against > AMD64, it's just a question of bad timing. Trying to combine It's not that I'm concerned or feel that there's some kind of conspiracy going on against amd64. The concern that I have had on occation is that amd64 isn't seen as ready, or the approach we've taken isn't considered the 'right' one, or that we don't fully adhere to LSB is a problem, or the arch name isn't acceptable, or x, or y, or whatever by those who make the decision about if an architecture is to be added to the archive (even just sid!, not talking about sarge here). It also isn't really clear *who* makes the call on new architectures (to me anyway, maybe I've missed it somewhere...). I can understand various reasons why someone might deny inclusion of an architecture. Perhaps this is why I have these concerns. I could understand someone not wanting to add s390x, or i686, or ppc64, etc, for various reasons. It seems to me that *some* decision has to be made before taking the next steps to see if the resources are available for whatever new arch has come down the road. From what I've read it seems that decision was made at some point in the past, and made in favor of amd64, and that people then started working on changes to the archive system and talking with mirrors and whatnot. A reply along the lines of "we'd like to add amd64 and we're checking if we have the resources on the mirrors, etc" would have been very helpful. Not as a committment to the architecture in any way, but to let us know that it's more of a resource question and not some other issue. If it turns out the resources aren't there, <Shrug> oh well, we'll just have to wait, or try to see if we could help find some additional resources. That's just referring to having it in sid. Once there we could discuss w/ the RM team the possibility of inclusion w/ sarge, or in a point release, or whatever. > In this thread I'm mostly witnessing half-truths (or hopefully just > ignoramus) and and bitter whining rather than constructive ideas, to an > extent I've rarely encountered before[1]. If you care about AMD64 (and > I'm not talking specifically to you Ingo, I just decided to jump in on > your quote), forget about the GR-proposal, help fix the RC bugs in base > and standard. Just because those bugs aren't AMD64-specific, doesn't > mean they don't block AMD64. In fact, as soon as Sarge is ready for > release, everyone except for the stable release manager will have a lot > more time to deal with AMD64. I agree that the GR-proposal should be forgotten. Fixing RC bugs is always a good thing to do, sure. > into testing without passing Sid. Does anyone really consider it sane > to let an entire new architecture in without at least being part > of Sid for, say, half a year or so? Especially in a situation where we > *hopefully* can release Sarge within that timeframe[0]? Half a year seems kind of long, but if we have enough time to implement that in time for sarge then I don't have any particular problem with it. My feeling is that amd64 should go into sid, then into testing as usual, just like every other arch, and then near the sarge release point make a decision about it one way or the other. > BTW: Feel open to flame. I don't killfile anyone (well, except for > spammers). I might not answer, but at least I read the mail I get. Just had to say 'me too' to this. I don't particularly like killfiles in general. :) Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature