Re: The 98% and N<=2 criteria (was: Vancouver meeting - clarifications)
Frank Küster dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:15:15PM +0100]:
> This whole argument is bogus. Up to before Vancouver, we always said:
> "A package should be Architecture: any if it can in principle be
> compiled on every arch; the fact that it might not be useful there does
> not justify excluding it from that arch." And AFAIK the rationale for
> this was overall quality of the distribution.
>
> Now with the requirement for 98% compiled (and N<=2 buildd's being able
> to take the workload) the focus has shifted: From overall quality to
> timely release and quality of individual architectures.
> (...)
Ummm... What do you think about this:
There are packages we recognize will be of little use in certain
architectures - say, KDE on m68k, qemu on a !i386, etc. They should be
built anyway on all architectures where expected to run be buildable,
anyway, as a QA measure - many subtle bugs appear as the result of
architecture-specific quirks.
"Architecture: any" means "build anywhere". We could introduce a
second header, say, Not-deploy-for: or Not-required-for:. This would
mean that KDE _would_ be built for m68k if the buildds are not too
busy doing other stuff, and probably would not enter our archive (or
would enter a different section - just as we now have contrib and
non-free, we could introduce not-useful ;-) )
Would such a measure be enough for you?
Greetings,
--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)1451-2244 / 5554-9450
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Reply to: