When will amd64 join sid? [Was: Re: gcc default for amd64 (Re: Bug#250174: gcc-3.3: Miscompilation of Objective-C code on amd64.)]
Michael Banck <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:59:41AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
>> Why should we not go into sid within the next days? what is keeping us
>> out of it?
> Well, the mirrors are getting restructered to allow for less-than-all
> architectures to be mirrored. Then, consensus seemed to be that amd64
Who says so? Who is working on that? What has still to be done?
This keeps coming up as an excuse without any facts behind it. It
realy looks like a pure excuse for being to lazy.
If this realy is a problem why not tell us what needs to be fixed so
we can help?
I also, without further details, see this argument as pure
rubish. There are many less-than-all architectures mirrors in
existance so this is nothing new and nothing that needs to be invented
first. So whats realy going on?
> would only go in after sarge. I don't pretend I know everything on this
> issue, though :)
I think that consensus was under the consideration of patches needed
for multiarch support. With the little impact pure64 has (78 patches
currently and many FTBFS on all archs) there is no noticeable impact
of amd64 on sarge and thus no reason to stall.
>> Will sarge really release by the end of next month?
> Nobody knows right now.
>> If I look into the RC-bugs list, I don't think so. D-I made
>> significant improvements, though.
> The RC-bug list is not that important, as long as we can just drop the
> offending packages. Indeed, d-i seems to be going along quite nicely,
> with a first release candidate scheduled for the end of May.
> *But*, there are non-technical issues holding up the sarge release as
> well, most notably binary-only firmware and non-free documentation. It
> is not clear whether those have to be removed before the release or not.
>> So what keeps us out of sarge?
> We'd have to be in sid first.
>> Facing the debian release cycle, if we will have to wait 2 years for
>> sarge+1 with amd64 included, we will not have may users left in the end.
> Sure, I think the same.
> Probably the best thing to do is to have d-i working for amd64 and a
> very stable toolchain, plus a lot of packages built. I'm not quite sure
> what the next step would be though.
> Something good and neutral would be to post a 'We're done. This, this
> and that works. What about the mirrors?'-mail to -devel. If somebody is
> bold enough, he might even try -devel-announce, but then everything has
> to be perfect.
There were 4 (iirc) mails like this already with various states of
I think we should wait for 95% for the next one and then do one for
every % amd64 advances or every month that passes (if it comes to that).
> It all boils down to whether sarge will release soon or not I guess.
> But anyway, it would be trivial to produce a 'Custom Debian
> Distribution' featuring amd64 and advocate it publically, once
> everything is in place expect the ftp.debian.org.
Everything is in place except the ftp.debian.org, even D-I images for