Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:06:18PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Hamish Moffatt <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2005-03-14 23:00]:
> > > But really, is there much benefit in making *releases* for the SCC
> > > architectures?
> > For some SSC arches, it *might* not make a difference (possibly m68k)
> > but others (e.g. s390 and mipsel) are typically used for servers
> > or gateways, and you don't really want to run unstable in such
> > environments. testing+security updates might be a compromise, but
> > unstable is clearly not an option for a S390 box or a mipsel Cobalt
> > gateway.
> OK, that makes sense. Can you buy those architectures new? (Surely yes
> in the case of s390 at least, probably mipsel also as the mips CPU
> manufacturers are alive and well.)
AFAIK m68k is the only one which isn't available anymore, unless you
count its mmu-less variants in.
> If those architectures meet the criteria, they would be included in
> the release. The announcement anticipated 4 arches meeting the criteria
> for etch but didn't set that as a limit.
With the 10% quorum etch will have 1-2 architectures.
> I guess the <= 2 buildds requirement might be an issue for the embedded
> CPUs like mips as unstable continues to grow.
AFAICS the criterion was > 2 buildd. (And even a single mips/mipsel
machine would be enough to keep up if it was one of those high-end
dualcore/quadcore embedded systems.)