Re: summarizing arch status
* Steve Langasek (firstname.lastname@example.org) [060604 11:52]:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 11:24:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > AFAICS, we have the following architectures we released sarge with and
> > which are currently no release candidates for etch:
> > - m68k:
> > - some subarches require 2.2 and/or 2.4 kernels - I don't think we
> > will support that (but we could also just drop these
> > subarchitectures, like we did for 80386 with sarge).
> I don't think we should be keeping 2.2 around, period. If an architecture
> needs 2.2 in order to release, it shouldn't be a release arch.
Fully agreed. And also s/arch/subarch/.
> > - traditionally weak with keeping up, but currently in good shape
> I don't agree that http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png
> shows it "in good shape". We can expect the build load to get worse, not
> better, with a push for the release...
"good shape" was definitly the wrong word - rather "not as bad as it
used to be". :)
> > - sparc:
> > - kernel support? we had spontanous reboots there.
> There is a kernel in place on the buildds that's proving stable, but it's
> *not* the kernel from sarge etch; it's newer even than the one currently in
> sid. AIUI, there are concerns about having to run the buildds in such a
> configuration in the long term.
> The ideal fix here is to get the necessary kernel changes backported into
> the Debian 2.6.16 kernel package.
yes, or in whatever is going to be the kernel used for etch.