Re: (wishlist) Re: edos.debian.net
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 01:14:39PM +0100, Frederic Lehobey wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 11:40:58AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Friday 22 December 2006 15:25, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > m68k can be removed from testing and amd64 should be removed from
> > > > stable...
> > > Why ? etch-m68k is alive and kicking.
> > Because it makes the statistics less useful: if you look at
> > http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/ you will see that m68k has the most
> > broken packages, thus contributing heavily to the number of packages which
> > are broken on "some" arch (see there).
> > The "which packages are broken on some archs" is a useful indicator, but it's
> > not/less useful for etch, if architectures which are not including in etch
> > are included.
> > And, no matter how alive m68k "really" is, m68k will not be part of etch, this
> > has been decided and announced three month ago:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/09/msg00020.html
> So your request to edos.debian.net is 'please remove m68k from etch'
> statistics which is something very different from testing (even if
> they currently match). (m68k might qualify again for release in the
> future thanks to the impressive work already achieved on so-called
> 'rogue' autobuilders and such).
The corresponding section in www.edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck is
already called "etch", not "testing". Of course I do not want exclude
anyone. Before removing "m68k" from the "etch" statistics I just have
to make up my mind in which section to place the results for testing/m68k.
> On my side, I would ask edos.debian.net maintainers to add, if not too
> difficult, the kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 architectures as is
> already the case on packages.debian.org (and, why not, hurd-i386,
> armeb, m32r and other prospective ports).
With pleasure. Just tell me from where I can get the Package files.