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

Re: How does a port become real?

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 09:57:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I have some questions:
>  * What does it take to qualify a Debian port for a spot on
>    ftp.debian.org?  Must we reach a certain stage, have a certain
>    number of packages working, or something?

The real answer at the moment is wait until the mirroring stuff is
segmented to support more architectures.

The general answers, for Linux ports, is you need to have a working
toolchain, and a reasonable number of packages built; ideally with a
working autobuilder.

For non-linux architectures, there's no real set of rules. The Linux
architectures that're being blocked at the moment (amd64, s390x, ppc64,
sh and others that I forget offhand) are higher priority and will likely
happen first, though.

To be considered a release candidate, you should generally have a buildd
that's integrated into buildd.d.o, and consistently hitting at least the
85%-90% mark on graph2; you should have a developer accessible machine
online; you should have d-i working, and have a couple of successful
installations with it; and so forth.

>  * Can bugs for these not-quite ports be submitted even before they have
>    a spot on ftp.debian.org if patches are included?

Nothing stopping you from filing wishlist bugs.

>  * What is the procedure for getting space on ftp.debian.org once we
>    (the porters) believe the qualifications have been met?

Ask, although as above, you won't get a yes for a little while yet.

>  * Same question for the autobuilders.

For architectures that aren't in the archive, there's nothing anyone
but the port developers can do about autobuilding afaik.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

             Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: