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

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> 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.

Speaking of the mirror network is a red-herring.  Mirrors are not
forced to distribute every arch; they can and should eliminate archs
they aren't interested in distributing.

> 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.

That's a different issue.  There are two reasons a package might not
be built: because there is no autobuilder and it hasn't been rebuilt
by hand, or because it's never been built for the arch.

In the latter case, which is by far the normal one for ports like
hurd-i386, there is no need to keep old sources around.

It would be valuable here for us all to have some hard statistics
rather than operating from guesswork about it, however.  Just how much
bloat *are* we talking about?  


Reply to: