Re: Bit from the Release Team: Status of hppa
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:21:11PM +0200, Thibaut VARÈNE wrote:
> Le 23 sept. 10 à 07:05, dann frazier a écrit :
>> I don't have a complete list, but here's the things that pop to
>> First off, we need to figure out where to host it. We could
>> potentially have a squeeze-hppa release on the official debian
>> mirrors, or use debian-ports.org. We'll need to talk to ftpmaster &
>> debian-ports maintainers to see which is most appropriate.
>> In addition, we'll need to work with the d-i team to make sure we have
>> a usable installer - as well as the debian-cd team to make sure we can
>> generate ISO images, though we may end up having to generate images
>> We'll also need to keep doing the things we do today - fixing
>> hppa-specific issues, keeping buildds running, etc. Documentation,
>> test installs and lenny upgrade testing would be needed too.
> I think it's been sufficiently documented on this m-l that hppa is/was
> in a releasable state (d-i works, upgrade works, etc) so this is mostly
> moot, and the cause of my personal disinterest for Debian given the way
> things were handled.
By those measures, sure. However, there are still issues with building
packages reliably - which I believe was the biggest strike against
including hppa in squeeze.
Don't get me wrong, I know things have only improved - and that took a
lot of work from this group - but the release team had to make a call
based on the way things stood, not how much they improved. Now that
the call has been made, I'd rather focus on what we can do to let hppa
users keep usin'.
>> Post-release, we'll need to have a plan for continued updates for
>> squeeze security updates & point releases.
> Besides making sure we build and update our "hppa-squeeze" release with
> whatever DSA uploads to security (which can probably be scripted
> somehow), is there anything else specific?
Fixing bugs :)
And particularly #561203, which is hopefully a keystone issue that
will resolve several others. I've tried the various patches I'd seen
posted to the list (and marked them a such on the wiki), but the
reliability problems still persist on the buildds. (I'm hoping fixing
this would also fix the 'waf' issues and the multiple retries it
takes to build gcc, gdb, python, etc).
I'm sure there are other specific things as well that would be
uncovered by meeting w/ folks who have done this before (m68k/amd64
>> If we have interest here, it would probably behoove us to pull
>> together an IRC meeting with members from various subteams to assess
>> the full scope.
> PS: the autobuilder Lafayette is dead, and I see little reason to
> replace it with whatever hardware I could muster.
ok - does DSA know?