Re: M68K boot floppies / CDs
> > please accept the fact that the m68k people can't fix anything on the FTP
> > servers, including broken symlinks (and please accept my explanation that
> > changing the current symlink to 0606 isn't even near enough). The FTP team
> > needs to apply the fixes I outlined in my previous mail, that's all.
>
> Absolutely --- I wasn't trying to say that it was your fault, just
> that it really needs to be sorted out on the archive.
I agree on that part, naturally.
> I also thought I was sending that mail to Anne (rather than the whole
> Cc: list. Doh!), otherwise I'd have taken more care eliminating the
> somewhat inflammatory language --- sorry about that.
Don't worry; I can take some heat, even if I'll talk back in kind on
occasion.
> > In conclusion: I can't fix the FTP archive, and I refuse to do anything
> > more on this matter.
>
> Well, I can fix the archive, if I get the nod from one of the
> ftpmasters, but I'd rather that we worked out a way of doing this
> through normal channels so this problem doesn't keep on coming up.
> We don't have a great track record with non-i386 CDs, and I'd like to
> see it improved.
There's only been two releases with non-intel ports involved, and only one
(2.1) with non-intel CDs. The glitches we've seen in the original 2.1
release have been few (but we had quite a few trial runs in advance, both
with Chris and Steve IIRC). I'd not derive a bad track record from that...
Anyway it needs fixing, all the files are in place but the proper
procedures don't seem to.
> We should be able to come up with a way of identifying, reporting and
> fixing these problems in a timely manner, so lets do it so that we
> don't have to go through this every release.
One thing that did cost a lot of time was the delay in the 'byhand'
install of the update files. Maybe the installer should alert the FTP
admins of these files separately? Or whoever uploads files that need
manual installation needs to CC: his changes file and perhaps a short
rundown on the install to the FTP people. Depends on the FTP people what
they feel more comfortable with. Last alternative: whoever has to upload
these files gets write access to the FTP archive's corresponding area.
(Having see the fallout from botched FTP archive work, I'm not exactly
keen on mucking with the FTP tree myself. Plus it's none of my business
with potato, and we should be able to fix slink without that)
> It seems that problems with non-i386 architectures often fall under
> ``Someone Else's Problem'' fields, and hence disappear from sight.
:-) That's at least part of it. The rest of it: slightly overworked people
in the ports (we seem to be lucky on m68k; how many people work on
powerpc?). On top of that, I've not been involved in debian-boot directly
and got word of changes there mainly by Adam later.
> Perhaps each architecture needs someone who knows that they are
> responsible for the general well being of the port, since it doesn't
> seem that mentioning this sort of thing on the lists actually results
> in anyone getting excited enough to actually make the problem go away.
>
> I understand that the fact that the ftpmasters have to be involved to
> sort this out puts an extra barrier in the way, but if I actually had
> an m68k I'd campaign for the right to do ftpmastering activities under
> the m68k tree so I could fix this sort of thing. Does something like
> that sound possible? Any volunteers?
Someone responsible for the port - Christian already answered that, and I
don't see anybody for that task either. Mail to m68k-build is sure to
elicit some response. Mail to debian-68k might be forwarded by me if it
happens to catch my attention, but that's because I still read debian-68k
(but no other Debian list anymore, so I don't readily catch upcoming
trends there. Especially debian-devel got too noisy to be useful long
ago...)
Campaign for the right to admin the m68k sections of the FTP archive if
needs be - almost sounds like a good idea, if we can make sure that this
person takes extreme care not to damage other sections (overwriting a
symlink that points to binary-all with something very m68k specific) and
that packages rejected for good reason don't get installed that way (the
discussion about what qualifies as good reason might be entertaining to
kick loose on -devel sometime). What scares me is the 'campaigning' part
in the Debian project these days. Wouldn't Policy need to be changed for
that? Wouldn't this need to be discussed for three months on -devel or
someplace else?
I am exaggerating on purpose here, not to ridicule the democratic
structures in the project per se, rather to emphasize my opinion that so
much paper has to be moved in order to move a handful of files. It's not
really funny.
I still remember that I did what would now be called 'm68k ftp admin'
while Guy Maor was on vacation for a long time, and the automated install
process didn't take care of m68k yet. It was a stopgap type of measure, it
didn't take very long and I only did it because the others in Germany had
horrible net access to master at that time. But it solved the problem,
didn't cause any major trouble I'm aware of, and best of all: I don't
remember filling out any forms.
Enough stepping on everybody's toes. I've bored everybody to death with
how to fix the FTP archive, so why not file an extra juicy bug report on
top of this?
Michael
Reply to: