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

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


 the e-mail I'm quoting in its entirety below is one month old now and
 it seems there hasn't been a public reply.  A quick browing of the
 remaining emails doesn't releal a resolution in either direction.  From
 my POV John's questions are valid and important.  Martin, care to
 address them as DPL?


On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 09:26:47AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
 > On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 10:01:51AM -0400, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
 > > According to Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader:
 > > >   - 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.
 > > 
 > > AMD64 hardware sales are huge and growing.  Its CPUs are made by both
 > > AMD and Intel.  It's the upward-compatible upgrade path for the single
 > > most popular computer architecture *ever*.
 > > 
 > > But Debian can't accept the port because we don't have a PORT POLICY.
 > > 
 > > I think there's only one possible comment: "WTF?!"
 > Let's quantify this a bit more calmly :-)
 > I think there is something odd here.  We have numerous other ports that
 > have been allowed in prior to having this written policy.  I have
 > personally been involved with several of them.  Not allowing something
 > in because there is no written policy is a policy itself, and it seems
 > to be arbitrarily enforced.
 > It is very annoying to have all these closed-door workings of Debian.
 > ftpmaster writing policies behind closed doors that impact everyone, for
 > instance, and the DPL supporting it is troubling to me.  I might even go
 > so far as to say that it violates our "We won't hide problems" promise.
 > I am at a loss as to why this discussion is not happing on -devel or
 > -project and instead in private.
 > The various informal requirements (which, I should say, sounded quite
 > reasonable) that have been communicated to me on these lists before seem
 > to have been met by amd64 quite some time ago.  Some of them have not
 > been met by architectures already in the archive (even *released*
 > architectures!).  I would hope that the port policy would also force the
 > expulsion of any existing port that cannot meet the requirements for a
 > new port.
 > There seems to be a lot of ill will towards amd64 for a reason I cannot
 > fathom.  Some would be led to believe a conspiracy exists.  Because the
 > powers that be hold their discussions in private, we cannot prove or
 > disprove this, and I'm not alleging it.
 > But we have a situation here where the amd64 port name was arbitrarily
 > changed in dpkg (without any public discussion first); amd64 is more
 > mature than even some released architectures; people (the DPL included)
 > continue to raise the inability of amd64 to run 32-bit apps as a reason
 > not to accept it (even though this has not been a requirement for any
 > other 64-bit platform).  We have not only working debian-installer but
 > also working DFS installer.  There are also allusions to unnamed
 > "technical concerns" that ftpmasters have but have not communicated to
 > us.
 > > Can you imagine -- can anyone imagine -- that this POLICY, when it is
 > > created, won't allow the AMD64 port?!  That would be insane!  So, just
 > That is an excellent point.  If ftpmasters see a problem with amd64
 > meeting the policy they are drafting, tell us about it already and let
 > us fix things now rather than making us wait for this vaporous document.
 > > accept the fricking port and *then* write the policy!
 > -- 
 > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
 > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: