This one time, at band camp, Matthias Urlichs said: > Hi, Stephen Gran wrote: > > > No, I thought the proposal stated quite clearly, if there are users > > and there are porters, a given arch is able to be included. > > ... but only if new systems are still sold, and if individual machines > are fast enough to keep up with half the buildd work, and ... read the > list please. I did, and I saw this as a proposal with clear objectives in mind, rather than a clear implementation outline. I took those two in particular to be guidelines, rather than strict quantifiers. The problems they appear to be trying to address with these points are hardware availability and buildd admin time. Being able to get replacement parts and having a buildd admin team large enough to effectively manage the number of buildd's also seems to satisfy this, at least IMHO, but I am not one of the people involved in the proposal. I would certainly vote that way given the chance. So far in this thread, I have heard a lot of people whose opinion I respect say that the number of architectures has on several occasions slowed things down unacceptably because the existing infrastructure can't handle it, whether it be hardware, software, or wetware. Some people have made a proposal to limit the number of architectures in the stable release tree to what is actually responsibly maintained by the porters, and to make the porters do more of the work of mainstreaming ports. There are various points of the proposal that are imperfect, and implementation could be changed, but crying 'oh no, there goes my pet arch! Damn cabal!' doesn't help much, and probably actively hurts. If you want to see some points of the proposal changed so that it gives your pet arch a chance to be included in stable, then make proposals instead of assuming those who disagree are illiterate. So far as I can tell, the governing rule in Debian thus far has always been that the people doing the work get to make the decisions about their corner of the project. I don't see that that's going to change any time soon, and I don't particularly think it should. This proposal seems to be in that spirit, so why not try to address the parts you are unhappy with, and keep doing the good work? Take care, -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgp8qADYK1hoK.pgp
Description: PGP signature