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

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

This one time, at band camp, John Goerzen said:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:21:39AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > 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?
> Well, under this proposal, even if people do a lot of good work, they
> could be relegated to SCC for non-technical economic reasons (such as
> no new hardware being sold), and thus doomed to a slow, painful death
> in Debian.

If you hadn't snipped the earlier part of my message where I said I
thought this was intended to ensure that replacement parts would be
available, then perhaps you would have had less to be upset with me

Let me try to be clear.  I am not necessarily in favor of dropping
arches.  I am opposed to having portability issues make new releases
drag on forever, and slowing security releases.  We have been told
several times in the recent past by people who do quite a lot of the
heavy lifting around here that the current infrastructure can't take it
any more.  That means some other people are going to have to start doing
more of the work to keep some architectures included.  That doesn't seem
unreasonable to me.

The only real showstopper for some of the slower arches is that they
take too long to compile some of the bigger packages, and that slows
down getting security upgrades out the door.  I was under the impression
that things like distcc and the like were intended to address exactly
these issues.  If people are motivated to keep their pet arch in the
mainline distribution, I think doing the work to set up a distributed
build farm that won't slow down the security releases is both doable and
likely to be good enough to meet the standards outlined.  Even on m68k,
a sufficiently big farm ought to be able to build and link something
like KDE in a day or 2, and that ought to be good enough.  Not having
tried, though, I couldn't say for sure, and am willing to be corrected.
|   ,''`.					     Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :					 sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'			Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-					    http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: pgpjErEopcGEi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: