Re: alpha and hppa removal from unstable/experimental
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 12:00:26PM +0200, Thibaut VARENE wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:55 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. They were removed from testing
>> > before the squeeze release and there's no sign that they will be release
>> > architectures for wheezy. As such, we're planning to remove them from
>> > unstable and experimental in the next few days. buildd support for
>> > unstable and experimental will also be ended at that time, but will
>> > obviously continue for lenny updates / security builds.
>> >
>> > Before we remove the architectures, archives will be taken for anyone
>> > who wants to take a copy of the dump to use elsewhere. These dumps will
>> > be made available on request.
>>
>> Just curious:
>> 1) what's the cost of letting the unstable buildds run on a "don't
>> care" basis? (question which I asked before and which remained
>> unanswered afaik)
>> 2) what's up with the FTPmasters' minutes which stated the hppa
>> archive would be moved to debian-ports?
>
> As clearly explained in the mail to debian-devel-announce, it's the
> porters job to do the transition. Currently debian-ports can't accept a
> new port due to disk space issue. We already tried to upgrade them, but
> it failed. The porters wantijng a new port on debian-ports.org should
> find a person in Paris who can go to the place and fix the issue (which
> probably means also buying a new hard drive).
So, it seems this reads "it's your [porters] job to do the transition,
but anyway, we can't accept your contribution since our infrastructure
is currently not ready and it will also be /your/ [porters] job to fix
that". Somehow that looks very much like "oh, we're gonna screw you
and we couldn't care less, it's your problem". Maybe I'm overreacting
tho ;P
So basically the transition from "somewhere currently available" to
"nowhere until you [porters] find a place and handle the data
transfer" is the only option? Nice.
If I understand this right, the hppa port is basically terminated
without leaving any reasonable option for a recovery within the Debian
infrastructure. I'm not sure the people who followed the discussion
related to not releasing squeeze-hppa realized it had that kind of
implication.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there is no transition
path for the current users of Debian hppa unstable? i.e. when the
removal is completed, they'll be left with whatever state their
systems are in? How does that fit with Social Contract #4 "Our
priorities are _our users_ and free software"?
Still curious: what's to become of the hppa hardware currently in
"Debian's hands"?
My 2c in trying to clarify things so that every concerned party fully
understands what's in it for them.
>> 3) shouldn't such a decision (the removal of an arch from the archive)
>> be voted on, instead of being the arbitrary ruling of a couple of DDs?
>> Or did I miss the bit that said "not releasing in time equals archive
>> removal"?
>
> ftpmasters are not a couple DD, but DPL delegates. As such, they can
> take decisions regarding the archive.
I didn't realize the DPL (or his delegates) had almighty power upon
the archive content, in particular regarding removing architectures
and thus depriving Debian users of the freedom to use them.
Thanks for the head's up.
Cheers,
T-Bone
PS: obviously the same could be said for Debian alpha, but I'm not
familiar with the discussions regarding this particular arch.
Reply to: