Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:23:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:21:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 10:47:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > > Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.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 really understand that point though, since the plan is to drop mirror
support for all minor arches, what does it cost to have a 3 level archive
1) tier 1 arches, fully mirrored and released.
2) tier 2 arches, mostly those that we are dropping, maybe mirrored from
scc.debian.org in a secondary mirror network. (why not ftp.debian.org/scc
3) tier 3 arches, or in development arches, available on
ftp.debian.org/in-devel or something.
I don't see how having the in-devel arches be hosted on alioth instead on the
official debian ftp server would cause a problem.
Also, i don't understand why scc.debian.org is better than ftp.debian.org/scc,
really, ideally we could have /debian, /debian-scc, and /debian-devel or
something such. Is it really a physical problem fro ftp-master to held all
these roles ? What is it exactly that ftp-masters want to drop all these
arches for ?
Mirrors could then chose to go with 1) only (most of them will), or also
mirror 2) and/or 3).