On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 11:26:10PM +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > >Granted, the large archive size and the complex package dependency > >changes make creating a new stable distribution a difficult process; > >however, we seem to be managing well enough at this point. The release > >blocker is, at this point, the lack of build daemons for some > >architectures. > If there's no working buildd for the m68k architecture, or the > installer isn't ready for all m68k systems, it holds up the > release even though only 20 people use it. Which is part of the > problem - with so few users, who's going to fix that ? It's funny that m68k comes up so frequently in these discussions, since in practice this architecture rarely lags behind. The delays in getting testing-security on-line are not architecture-specific; they are related to architecture-neutral infrastructure. The delays in getting testing-proposed-updates online for all archs aren't correlated with architecture popularity or bogomips; the missing autobuilders are for the 4th and 6th most popular release architectures according to popcon. > OTOH, when sarge is finally released it will be without AMD64 > because that architecture couldn't be added in time- which was > before September 2004. And yet, it's the same group of people who are charged with deploying the wanna-build infrastructure for testing-security that would be called upon to integrate official wanna-build support for amd64 as well; so it's certainly not like adding amd64 for sarge would have come without a cost. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature