This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:27:25AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote: > > This one time, at band camp, Ingo Juergensmann said: > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > > > > > > > Moreover, the criterias given in your mail are just so oriented > > > > towards/against some architectures, that it's a bad joke (I was going > > > > to write "disgusting", really). > > > > > > It's a total change of direction: from "as long as there are people who > > > care, we will release those arch" to "no matter if there are people who > > > care, we just release mainstream archs". :-( > > > > No, I thought the proposal stated quite clearly, if there are users and > > there are porters, a given arch is able to be included. All that means > > is that those interested will actually have to do some of the work to > > support things like security and the kernel. I know many of you already > > That is a joke. Do you really think that the porters don't care about the > kernel ? I would really like that you don't drag the kernel-team in these > petty claims, as i don't think that this is a problem kernel-wise. For > example the first to go for the recent 2.6.11 kernels that are in the work > where powerpc and sparc, and now s390 : See my other posts, and further down in this one. I am not interested in offending anyone, and I am not actively involved in any of these areas. I am speaking from watching from the sidelines: watching while Woody was delayed for months watching while Sarge is delayed for . . . (months? a year? more?) watching while security fixes are delayed for weeks or months These are all unacceptable. That does not mean that I am saying either of a) drop the less frequently used arches, or b) the porters aren't doing thir jobs. I don't believe either of these statements to be true. If you are part of the good effort to port Debian to other architectures than the mainstream ones, I thank you. However, the people doing the heavy lifting of coordinating security releases, kernel management, and release management have spoken, and they've said they're overloaded. That being the case, a change in the distribution of labor is needed, and it likely means that the porters have to pick up the slack. If you are already doing so, I don't think you have anything to worry about. The arches I see as having problems in the future are those that have unresponsive buildd admins and slow to act port teams (or only a single person, who could easily be overwhelmed). These arches probably shouldn't be released as stable, so no real loss there. Take care, -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpWNF1iBmKwe.pgp
Description: PGP signature