Bug#852215: [Debian-ports-devel] Bug#852215: FTBFS on non-release architectures
On 01/22/2017 05:21 PM, James Clarke wrote:
>> Pulling packages from unreleased into main sounds like a bad idea, those
>> architectures would better have their own unreleased and
>> differently-versioned debian-installer IMO.
>
> It's still main, just unreleased/main rather than unstable/main. It may not be
> ideal, but 1. it has no effect on release architectures 2. the one-off change
> means porters don't have to keep a fork of debian-installer updated, which is
> effectively how it is now, and that's clearly not working out very well either
> given the lack of installer images for most ports. I've re-Cc'ed
> debian-ports-devel; perhaps others have ideas for how to resolve this.
I agree with James. unreleased simply exists to be able to keep additional
packages for Debian Ports architectures. It's not any less trustworthy than
the regular unstable archive for Debian Ports.
On the other hand, having a working Debian Installer for Debian Ports would
be a huge step forward and would open up Debian Ports to all the users which
are currently being kept back by the rather user-unfriendly way of installing
Debian for the Ports architectures.
Also, with this bug fixed, us porters can start working on the remaining issues
more easily as then we would have an easy access to build logs of the latest
builds. (Yes, we have that now as well, but the builds are always failing with
the same problem, there isn't really a point to check the build log for other
issues).
Thanks,
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Reply to: