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

Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64

* David Weinehall (tao@debian.org) wrote:
> I kind of suspect some people have been reading 1984 too many times,
> considering the amount of conspiracy theories that are weathered ever
> so often on various Debian-lists...  There is no conspiracy against
> AMD64, it's just a question of bad timing.  Trying to combine

It's not that I'm concerned or feel that there's some kind of conspiracy
going on against amd64.  The concern that I have had on occation is that
amd64 isn't seen as ready, or the approach we've taken isn't considered
the 'right' one, or that we don't fully adhere to LSB is a problem, or
the arch name isn't acceptable, or x, or y, or whatever by those who 
make the decision about if an architecture is to be added to the archive
(even just sid!, not talking about sarge here).

It also isn't really clear *who* makes the call on new architectures (to
me anyway, maybe I've missed it somewhere...).  I can understand various
reasons why someone might deny inclusion of an architecture.  Perhaps
this is why I have these concerns.  I could understand someone not
wanting to add s390x, or i686, or ppc64, etc, for various reasons.

It seems to me that *some* decision has to be made before taking the
next steps to see if the resources are available for whatever new arch
has come down the road.  From what I've read it seems that decision was
made at some point in the past, and made in favor of amd64, and that
people then started working on changes to the archive system and talking
with mirrors and whatnot.

A reply along the lines of "we'd like to add amd64 and we're checking if
we have the resources on the mirrors, etc" would have been very helpful.
Not as a committment to the architecture in any way, but to let us know
that it's more of a resource question and not some other issue.  If it
turns out the resources aren't there, <Shrug> oh well, we'll just have
to wait, or try to see if we could help find some additional resources.

That's just referring to having it in sid.  Once there we could discuss
w/ the RM team the possibility of inclusion w/ sarge, or in a point
release, or whatever.

> In this thread I'm mostly witnessing half-truths (or hopefully just
> ignoramus) and and bitter whining rather than constructive ideas, to an
> extent I've rarely encountered before[1].  If you care about AMD64 (and
> I'm not talking specifically to you Ingo, I just decided to jump in on
> your quote), forget about the GR-proposal, help fix the RC bugs in base
> and standard.  Just because those bugs aren't AMD64-specific, doesn't
> mean they don't block AMD64.  In fact, as soon as Sarge is ready for
> release, everyone except for the stable release manager will have a lot
> more time to deal with AMD64.

I agree that the GR-proposal should be forgotten.  Fixing RC bugs is
always a good thing to do, sure.

> into testing without passing Sid.  Does anyone really consider it sane
> to let an entire new architecture in without at least being part
> of Sid for, say, half a year or so?  Especially in a situation where we
> *hopefully* can release Sarge within that timeframe[0]?

Half a year seems kind of long, but if we have enough time to implement
that in time for sarge then I don't have any particular problem with it.
My feeling is that amd64 should go into sid, then into testing as usual,
just like every other arch, and then near the sarge release point make a
decision about it one way or the other.

> BTW: Feel open to flame.  I don't killfile anyone (well, except for
> spammers).  I might not answer, but at least I read the mail I get.

Just had to say 'me too' to this.  I don't particularly like killfiles
in general. :)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: