Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> The only valid reasons for not including it are lack of LSB compliance
>> (which can still be easily achieved with a i386 chroot) and mirror space
>> (which will be saved using partial mirroring).
> Is this a claim that all of the amd64 patches are present in the sources
> in main?
If not in sid (main isn't appropriate since amd64 also has contrib and
non-free) then they should all be in the BTS. The number of patches
missing is miniscule and a great number of trivial patches
(missing/broken Build-Depends, outdated config.guess/sub, adding amd64
to the Architecture: field, ...) have been added in recent month.
>From my overview of the status I would say that without any further
amd64 patches (except the outstanding dpkg and apt upload) amd64 would
still be over 95% complete, which was a limit stated in some previous
mail. It would take between 1-4 weeks to get back to the current level
if amd64 where added today unless some new FTBFS bugs show up and
people are uncooperative to fix them.
> In other words, that the only thing we're talking about is distribution
> of binaries built from sarge sources?
Debian-amd64 is running buildds following debian sid. There is a
handfull of packages that have extra patches applied but the policy of
the debian-amd64 team has been to always report a bug along with
uploading a patch.
We are talking about ~100 out of 9000 source packages having a patch
and many of them trivial or a bug for other archs too.