Re: Question for all candidates: handle debian-admin more openly
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:20:47PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Such requests and requirements change the situation. However, I have
> > to admit that I first read about this particular requirement here. I
> > noticed some babbling about ppc64, sparc64, mips64 and s390x
> > architectures but nothing that ended up in "will be included in the
> > archive, hence, requres buildd and development machines".
>
> > If this has changed, most probably debian-admin won't deny two
> > machines for these purposes.
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Question to the release and archive people: Is there such a
> > requirement? Will such architectures indeed be included the archive?
> > Do we really need machines of the particular 64 bit architectures? If
> > so for which architectures exactly?
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No decision has been made about including such partial architectures in the
> archive yet. I think it's the logical way to go once multiarch matures, but
> it hasn't really been discussed in-depth. The need for autobuilders capable
> of running binaries of these types exists whether or not we implement
> multiarch, though, because we already have sparc, powerpc, i386, and s390
> library packages in the archive providing 64-bit variants for these
> architectures; having 32-bit autobuilders stumble over security builds of
> glibc would be a bad thing.
Glibc in woody can by autobuilt.
Glibc in sarge can by autobuilt.
Glibc in etch can most probably by autobuilt.
Which security updates are you talking about?
> But this may have been largely mitigated in the meantime by some changes to
> dpkg-dev (dpkg-shlibdeps) that eliminate the dependency on ldd. If the
> existing lib packages can be autobuilt, I don't see any need to rush
> additional 64-bit autobuilders, since I think the current biarch approach to
> libraries is pretty lousy and shouldn't be expanded given that multiarch is
> on the horizon.
So the conclusion is that we currently don't need these machines.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Regards,
Joey
--
The only stupid question is the unasked one.
Reply to: