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

Re: is m68k really ready for testing?

On Apr 06, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:

 >> aj announced on the d-i list that he wants to do a sarge preview by
 >> end of the month, but with so many packages broken I really wonder if
 >> it's still appropriate to consider m68k in a releasable state,
 >Currently? No. But does that matter? We're not even close to releasing:
If we want to produce a prerelease suitable for users testing by the end
of the month than we are definitely close enough that remote exploits
and major release upgrades in critical packages do matter.

 >> given the
 >> damage to other architectures.
 >What damage exactly are you referring to? Let me spell it out for you
It's very simple: is keeping important packages like mutt and perl
outside of testing for weeks a problem?  [ ] YES  [ ] NO

 >Problems such as the one m68k is suffering from now can happen to _any_
 >architecture, and in fact, have happened to other architectures before.
 >We've had some hardware problems during the last week; as a result, half
During the last months, I'd say judging from what I did read here, on the
debian-glibc list and on IRC...

 >of our autobuilder capacity had been out. The resulting backlog has now
 >almost been cleared...
So I should expect all the problems I reported to be fixed in a few
days? A few weeks? A few months?

 >Yes, there have been problems with our toolchain. Does that mean we're
 >suddenly showing the world that we can't keep up, and that we should be
 >dropped? If someday there are problems with the s390 toolchain, will
 >you get up and scream that we should stop support s390, because
 >"nobody's using s390 anyway"[1]?
Sure. But please note that I did not ask to "stop supporting" any
architecture, only to remove it from the set of architectures used for
testing until it will be fit again.

 >m68k is also 'actually' used by people; if not, we wouldn't be here.
Reality is that usually m68k machines are not much more than a toy, and
who has one keeps it running for hack value since even old x86 or PPC
hardware is way faster.

 >> (Please do not suggest "fix these bugs yourself". I looked at my own
 >> package and determined that the bug is not my fault, I have no time to
 >> dedicate to a doorstop architecture.)
 >If you want us not to have bad feelings about anything, I'd suggest you
 >keep the insults for yourself.
There is no insult there, it's a strictly technical opinion.

ciao, |
Marco | [274 ra3kfwbpoCAlI]

Attachment: pgpICy2E69r4y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: