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

Re: is m68k really ready for testing?

Op zo 06-04-2003, om 22:13 schreef Marco d'Itri:
> 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
>  >the
>  >> 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.

well, then we don't agree here. Obviously, this does matter, but not
that much that we should decide the fate of an entire architecture on
that sole fact.

>  >> 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

Sure it is. But you _can_ ask for important packages to be forced in
testing. It's been done before.

>  >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...

Uh, no. We've had hardware problems during the last week. We did indeed
have some compiler problems during a longer period, which are now being
worked on.

>  >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?

I don't know. Should I expect sarge to be released in a few days? A few
weeks? a few months?

> 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.

That's practically the same.

>  >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.

I didn't deny that.

>  >> (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.

How 'technical' is the term 'doorstop architecture'?

wouter at grep dot be
"An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a
full one, but there are plenty of dead experts." 
  -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal gesigneerd

Reply to: