[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

James & me @ FOSDEM talking about m68k


James Troup was at FOSDEM this weekend, and we talked a bit about the
m68k situation there, amongst others. My first question was about the
state of our buildd addition requests, and whether it was on purpose or
so that none of them had been granted yet. He basically apologised for
not acting upon any of those, and told me that it wasn't on purpose; the
main reason apparently was him reading the mail, intending to reply to
it sooner or later, but then forgetting to do so. I know the feeling.
Stephen, you've been creating a list of buildd hosts that could still be
added; could you bounce James that list? Preferably with all the
information (SSH keys, hostnames, blabla). I'm not sure whether I sent
you that information on the hosts I still have running; if I haven't,
please let me know and I'll send you what you need.

Later on, we talked about us not being part of etch, and what we could
do about that (basically, he asked me whether we were okay with him
dropping all m68k packages from stable once it released, which I
denied). I mentioned the suggestion that had been done by aj regarding
us having an etch and separate britney runs for m68k, but also that not
much had happened in that regard; I also talked about the suggestion
which Jeroen and I had come up with in Breda last summer, where we would
still be able to do uploads targeted at an m68k version of stable after
the release. James first thought I meant we would like to be able to
upload to "regular" stable after it released, which he told me would be
impossible without changes to dak to remove a safety net forbidding
random changes to stable (which he's not willing to make, for obvious
reasons). When I told him that I meant to create a separate suite --
say, "etch-m68k" or so -- he told me this would be possible, and that we
would also be able to do sourceful uploads then, to fix any RC bugs we
might still have outstanding. Frans Pop, who happened to be present at
that discussion mentioned that we'd have to do changes to the installer
too, but I don't think that's too much of a problem.

Personally, I think it'd be best if we could go this way. Having a
testing-m68k with our own britney runs and our own criteria for having
packages migrate to etch makes it much harder for us to remain in sync
with "regular" etch; being able to polish up some packages after the
fact makes that much easier. So I'd like to request that as part of
releasing etch as stable, ftpmasters create a second suite called either
"etch-m68k" which we can upload packages to.

Off to update the manual now, since Frans needs me to do that today or
tomorrow :)

<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22

Reply to: