On 11478 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote: >> - If an architecture fails to be included in 2 successive official >> releases, it is moved out of the official archive (and away from the >> ftp-master.debian.org host). >> - We (as in ftpteam) are happy to help in any possible way in a move >> from a no-longer-supported architecture to a different platform[1], >> like providing all neccessary files to import currently existing >> suite in the target archive (think of .changes files). > I feel I'm missing the full rationale for this change. What are the new > architectures in the pipe that space needs to be made for? There are multiple bugs in the ftp.debian.org pseudopackage about architectures wanting to get in. > For that matter, the current ftp-master disk is 81% full, and that's > with oldstable not yet purged from the pool, something which is now > long overdue; so why is any architecture clean-up currently needed at > all? Cos some architectures just eat space that can be used otherwise. And the current disk usage on ftpmaster isnt the only metric that counts. Debian is a distribution, and distributions want to release. If an architecture can't do that - its fine to have a port, but please dont take any resource that could be taken by an architecture thats actually able to release. > If we aren't really running into resource constraints linked to the > architecture count, it's a poor use of people's time to have to > redeploy all of the ftp-master infrastructure on a separate host. We *DO* run into resource constraints more often than we like it. > And it's my understanding that arm is already intended to be dropped > immediately post-lenny in favor of armel. Yes. arm, m68k and hurd-i386 are the current candidates, with arm (AFAIK) totally dying, for the other two I expect someone else to host an archive. And maybe, at some time later, one of them coming back. But thats future. > In addition, as an alpha porter I'm of the opinion that the port > should be discontinued for lenny+1, because I no longer get any > benefit at all from it (all my alpha does anymore is take in > electricity and spit out d-i daily builds + heat), so I'm very > skeptical that anyone else will benefit from it either past the end of > lenny's 2.5-year support cycle. So I think there's room for dropping > architectures here without forcibly kicking them off of ftp-master. Fine, if everyone involved in stopping the support for alpha - ftpmaster wont be in your way. If someone else thinks alpha is worth to keep - and does the work to fulfill the basic rules we set (ie. keeps it in a releaseable state), it stays in. > Is this a unanimous decision of the ftp team? You say that discussions were > had at DebConf 8, but not all of the ftp team (or even all of the ftp > masters) are present there... I know that not all of us have been here. Where is the point? JFTR, this was passed via an m68k porter, release people, other ftp people, dpl and a dsa... >> If you disagree - please provide sane alternative suggestions. > In the absence of an explanation why this change is needed, I suggest "don't > change what's not broken" as a sane alternative. The fact that we currently have *no* guidelines at all is broken, so we fix it. Now, we get complaints if decisions are made on a case by case basis. We get complaints if we provide guidelines that are easy and clear. What do people want? -- bye, Joerg <rvb> Dafür hat Ubuntu nen kleinen.
Attachment:
pgp0EEl7trKTn.pgp
Description: PGP signature