Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal
* Ingo Juergensmann (firstname.lastname@example.org) [050822 10:42]:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:58:24AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > 4. The requirement that any port has to have 5 developers support it,
> > and be able to demonstrate that there are (at least) 50 users.
> How should this demonstration should be achieved? What is the procedure for
> this? When I grep my /etc/passwd I have 28 users for m68k on my own, but
> that machine just counts as one user on popcon.d.o.
> > [...]
> ... and this paragraph makes clear, that you just can't use popcon for that
> issue. So, how shall those users be counted?
Well, this was not specified by purpose. If popcon shows very many
machines (i.e. i386), than that's all. If it doesn't show, than use
another way. If you have 70 people actively using m68k on your place
every day, than this statement from you might be enough (if you provide
enough details or whatever of course). Another way would be to show that
a lot of different users wrote bug reports where the run reportbug on
that arch. Or whatever. It just means "it needs to be demonstrated",
and, frankly speaking, that should really be able for any arch.
(And the reason is quite simple: If a port is used, much more specific
bugs are found than if only buildds use this port.)
> > - must be a developer-accessible debian.org machine for the
> > architecture
> A single machine is sufficient? Should this be a public available d.o
> machine or is limited access sufficient?
Any developer needs to have access to that machine.
> > - binary packages must be built from unmodified Debian source
> Uhm? When there is a new arch upcoming, they need to modifiy the Debian
> source, at least sometimes, right?
But they can't upload that binary package, even if only for legal
reasons. Of course, the source-package might be NMUed ...
(and yes, that's nothing new)
> Or do you mean by "overall requirements" just the already established ports?
> My interpretation of "overall" is that this counts for both (new and old
It counts for all. And any binary package in the archive must be built
from the source package of the same(*) version in the archive. (where
same considers any binNMU-version of the package the same as the basic
version, i.e. version 1-2==1-2.0.1)
> > - binaries must have been built and signed by official Debian
> > Developers
> This has been always the case, right?
Yes. As the "built from unmodified source". But it doesn't hurt to write
it down here.