Re: AMD64 for sarge [Re: <rant> Package: ftpmasters, Severity: serious, ...]

[Matthias Urlichs <smurf@smurf.noris.de>]

Hi, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:

>   - A general port inclusion policy: there are a number of pending ports
>     (s390x, powerp64 and various BSD ports), and therefore it is
>     important to have a clear policy saying which criteria a new port
>     has to fulfil.
> 
Just use the policy we used for the last new architectures. I wasn't there
at that time, but IMHO any sane policy should boil down to "if it works,
it's in". (OK, so there also should be enough users -- let's say, "more
than the second-least-popular architecture already in Debian" should
work.)

>   - The mirror situation: [...] The tools for this exist now; what is
>     left is creating a policy about this and switching the mirrors to
>     the new system.
> 
OK, that's not an AMD64 problem.

>   - Some technical AMD64 questions: ftpmaster had some specific
>     questions about the AMD64 port they want to see answered.

Which questions? Link please.
 
>     Also, an
>     LSB person recently expressed some technical concerns (see [1]).

Those have been answered. Some people may not like the answer, but IMHO
it's good enough and, frankly, somewhat more sensible than the alternate
solution.

> [timeframe]

Frankly, the complaints about the responsiveness of ftpmaster lately
suggest that at this rate, the archive structure conversion and thus the
amd64 inclusion won't happen for sarge. IMHO, the job needs more manpower.

I'd think that you'd find some volunteers among the amd64 people...

-- 
Matthias Urlichs