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

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

>On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:23:54AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>> > Basically, you're just leaving a number of Debian users out in the
>> > cold. Users who choose Debian because we were the only distribution
>> > out of there to provide serious support for the architectures they
>> > care for, for various reasons.
>> Indeed.  I am one such user.  I have always felt fortunate that I don't
>> have to really care what architecture a machine is, because "of course
>> it runs Debian".  I have run Debian on Alpha, x86, amd64, powerpc, and
>> sarc systems, both as a desktop and a server environment on most of
>> these.
>I'm pretty amazed that people are saying that without being an FCC that their

>arch will simply die. I don't understand why the porters, who've been so quick

>to point out that they'll host and maintain buildd's, aren't willing to simply

>track unstable and set up their own buildd network for their port. The m68k

>guys did it. So did amd64. dak is now in the archive, and sbuild has been there

>for ages. Quite frankly, I'll be shocked if m68k or anyone else doesn't make

>their own etch release within days of the official one.

The question is: how do you release a SCC arch, if at all?

Its unlikely that producing an s390 (for example) release for etch is simply
a matter of building the released etch on
s390. It will probably take patches to the released packages
for s390 to work. Is the s390 release etch+patches ? 
There would be version skew; will Security releases be available?

Immediately post a release, there is likely to be a flood of
RC-creating changes, as transitions that were postponed for the release are
committed; indeed this is the recommended time to do them, in order to get as
much time for stabilisation as possible, However under the proposal, any SCC
architecture build comes from unstable; so, if s390 doesn't build a working
when FCC releases, then back to the bottom of the hill as ahuge pile of new
RC bugs arrives; it sounds highly unlikely that 
the porters could get s390 unstable into a fit shape to release.

I think the coupling between FCC and SCC architecture releases needs to be thought
through, or at least explained, better. 
As it is, if I was an SCC arch maintainer, trying to remain in sync with FCC
changes sounds impossible under this scheme; 
it will drive the SCC archs away from debian so that they
have some time to themselves to stabilise.

> - David Nusinow
 -Alastair McKinstry

Reply to: