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

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

On Sat, 2018-09-29 at 17:05 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 9/29/18 8:48 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 14:16 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Furthermore, several of the ports are in very healthy condition and
> > > even surpass some release architectures. The powerpc and ppc64 ports,
> > > for example, build more packages than any of the mips* ports.
> > 
> > I would be very happy to never have to wait for MIPS builds again.
> I don't have a problem with waiting for slow machines. I just think this
> shows that the decisions what becomes a release architecture and what
> doesn't isn't purely meritocratic.

It's been a long time since Debian could run infrastructure on donated
hardware.  We need hardware that is reliable and that can be quickly
replaced when (not if) it fails.  So commercial availability is, and
should continue to be, a release qualification.

It is also unacceptable that the release of an urgent security update
should have to wait a long time for builds.  So speed matters.

> I think the problem that I have is that the release qualifications are
> not practical in the sense that they don't necessarily meet our users
> expectations. As I said, I think a tier-based system would be more
> practical as it would allow ports to be degraded more gracefully instead
> of just kicking them out like it was done with 32-Bit PowerPC.

Could you be more specific?


Ben Hutchings
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism. - Harrison

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: