On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:21:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes: > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 10:47:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes: > > > > The sh and hurd-i386 ports don't currently meet the SCC requirements, as > > > > neither has a running autobuilder or is keeping up with new packages. > > > It is impossible for any port under development to meet the SCC > > > requirements. We need a place for such ports. Where will it be? > > On the contrary, the amd64 port does, and is currently maintained > > completely outside official debian.org infrastructure. > The amd64 port did not always. Ports under development take time; the > amb64 port is at a late state in its development. I don't understand > why autobuilding is important to SCC; maybe if you could explain that > I would understand. The point is that the ftpmasters don't want to play host to various ports that *aren't* yet matured to the point of usability, where "being able to run a buildd" is regarded as a key element of usability in the port bootstrapping process. The amd64 team have certainly shown that it's possible to get to that point without being distributed from the main debian.org mirror network. I don't know if the ftpmasters have any specific plans to drop hurd-i386, if that's what you're asking, I was just pointing out that the hurd port doesn't presently meet the stated requirements. If anything, though, having a port that's not actively keeping up with unstable is *worse* that having a port that just hasn't built anything, because it bloats the size of the archive with stale sources that have to be kept around as long as the binary packages are. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature