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

Edge and multi-arch (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

* Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> [2005-03-14 13:10]:
> | I have yet to see a proposal how to do multiarch in the right way.
> What is lacking in the proposals out there?

The following is what I (as DPL) sent to the release people in January
to get them to discuss these issues.  I didn't post this to a list
because what I wrote is kinda rough and I wanted the release people to
clarify and post it.  Since this hasn't happened yet, I might just as
well post my original message.  But please note that some important
things might be missing in it.

Basically, there has been a lot of discussions about multi-arch and
some people seem to think that after sarge we'll _obviously_ move to
multi-arch.  Well, this is not so obvious to me.  In particular, I see
no consensus among ftpmaster/archive people, release people, toolchain
people, porters, and basically everyone else that this is the way to
go.  If we decide to go with multi-arch, we need:

  - agreement of all these people
  - a _clear_ plan about this migration (and have this plan before
    sarge is out), including a clear timeplan (announcement on day X,
    maintainers have Y months to upload, if they don't do it in Y
    months, we'll have a time of Z people who'll NMU the packages by
  - a proof of concept (this may exist already)
  - agreement with some upstream LSB people that it's a good idea for
    Debian to pioneer this in the hope that others will follow suite
    (rather than a way of Debian to make itself incompatible with
    the rest of the world).  [Chris Yeoh and taggart are the people
    to talk to.]

There may be a few other things missing, but basically the multi-arch
people have to show a clear plan _now_ how and why this migration is
supposed to happen.

Can one of you take what I said just, put this in some more coherent
form and post it to -devel?

Martin Michlmayr

Reply to: