Re: "testing" improvements

[jmarant@nerim.net (Jérôme Marant)]

Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org> writes:

 
>> Force packages into testing? You must have missed the point.
>> I said let packages into testing for architectures where nothing
>> prevent them to. Why would mipsel failures block x86 packages,
>> for instance?
>
> Maybe because it's sign that the package is probably broken and we
> couldn't release before it builds on mipsel again.  The exception
> is when maintainers decide that the package is not supposed for a
> certain architecture and removes it from the Architecture: line.
>
> I have to admit that I don't see the benefit of your proposal
> except that some people get access to some packages in testing
> earlier than others, depending on the architecture used.

That was the point actually, in order to encourage people
to use testing rather than unstable or backported unstable
packages for stable (which doesn't help us testing).

> Shouldn't we instead spend time on fixing the package on these
> architectures for which it is broken instead?

Sure. But you probably realize that having more and more
architectures and a lot of dependencies make the whole
process slower. 

> Shouldn't we judge any architecture similar to another that we
> support?  Please note that Debian is the only distribution that
> runs on all of them, so I guess we should rather spend more time
> on continuing the support instead of abandon certain architectures.

I didn't meant to abandon architectures. However, I would like
to know exactly what packages are used on slow architectures
like m68k. I doubt that people run mozilla or KDE on it.

-- 
Jérôme Marant

http://marant.org