On 02/04/11 10:32, Witold Baryluk wrote:
On 04-01 21:16, Matt Turner wrote:On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Mark Hymers<mhy@debian.org> wrote:Hi, As mentioned in the recent ftp-team meeting minutes, we're planning to remove alpha and hppa from unstable.Might want to hold off on that for alpha. There's been a flurry of emails in the last week working to revive it.I agree, we should discuss it.
Yes, I would also like to ask can we have a "stay of execution" for a short period of time (maybe a couple of months or three) to give the new "porting team" that is currently forming a chance to prove that we can return the Alpha Arch back to releasable state.
I realise that a "grace period" has already been given but it seems that the discovery that Alpha was not amongst the Squeeze release has both surprised some people and spurred them into action.
At the time Alpha was removed from the testing distribution it did have serious issues and was criticised for a lack of upstream support. The upstream support has now largely been addressed. The kernel is now up to date with other architectures and is being supported. X windows is now working on the more modern Alphas (i.e. those with the BWX CPU extension), and the fixes to get KMS working on Alpha will soon make their way into the kernel. There is now upstream support addressing issues in the compiler toolchain and glibc.
It is quite a blow that when we have just got a team together to work on Debian Alpha that we learn that Alpha is to be completely removed from the buildds.
If we could get a short stay of execution, with an agreed upon list of things that need to be addressed to prove our mettle, say within three months time, or else Alpha shall be removed from the buildds, we would be mightily obliged!
Cheers Michael.