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

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 14/06/16 09:06, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +0000, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Philipp Kern:
>>> On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>>>  * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el,
>>>>    s390x
>>>>    - *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security.
>>>>    - s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns.
>>> What is the current DSA concern about s390x?
>> The concern listed as: "rely on sponsors for hardware (mild concern)"
>> As I recall the argument went something along the lines of:
>> "Debian cannot replace the hardware; if any of the machines dies, we
>> need a sponsor to replace it.  If all of them dies and we cannot get
>> sponsored replacements, we cannot support the architecture any longer"
>> (My wording)
> Yeah, but that's unfortunately one of the universal truths of this port.
> I mean in theory sometimes they turn up on eBay and people try to make
> them work[1].
> It also seems true for other ports where we commonly relied on sponsors
> to hand us replacements. But maybe it's only ppc64el these days, maybe
> there are useful builds available for the others (including arm64 and
> mips) on the market now.

AFAIK we rely on sponsors for all ports. The difference is that if we eventually
have to buy things ourselves, we can get mips*, arm* or x86 buildds (for
example), but we can't reasonably get a s390x one.

But that's not something we can change, so as long as there no other concerns,
this shouldn't be a blocker.


Reply to: