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

Re: 185 Packages that look orphaned

Nano Nano <40119.nospam@comcast.net> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:24:23AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Anand Kumria <wildfire@progsoc.org> writes:
> > > No, if you going to send out this kind of email you need to look more
> > > deeply at the problem. swh-plugins requires fftw to work. That doesn't
> > > because GCC 3.3.3 ICEs on m68k. The fix is in gcc 3.3.4 but you, no
> > > doubt, already did the work to discover this rather than wasting my
> > > time.
> How much faster could Debian releases occur if fewer archs. were 
> supported?  Has a cost/benefit ratio been established?  (Bug counts v. 
> installed base).

Dropping some arch would probably speed up the Debian release by 1 day
or so, if it doesn't slow the release down because less people would
work on it.

If you look back what the porters have done for debian you find that
its more than the main arch. The amount of FTBFS bugs all the
different architectures have caught alone is huge. All the different
archs make for quality control on its own.

As for the cost/benefit: 0 cost, many happy users => infinit ratio.
Could that be any better? :)

There are many steps that can be done _if_ one arch starts to slow a
Debian release down for more than a intermittend time. But its never
realy been a general problem so far. Check out
http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-big.png for an overview. At the
current rate source are uploaded archs are at most 2-4 days behind the
uploaded sources (the number of packages missing ~ the number of
sources uploaded in 2.4 days).


Reply to: