Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Ok, I think I understand. Suppose that we have an arch that does have
> > enough download share, and meets every requirement but the existence
> > of sufficient buildds to keep up and developer machines, and that only
> > because hardware hasn't come available.
>
> Who's downloading it, if there's no hardware to run it on?
I'm assuming that the separate requirements are listed because you
could meet one but not others. In this case, it's easy to imagine
that there *is* hardware to run it on, but nobody's ponied up the
hardware for the extra buildd(s) and developer machines.
Those seem like eminently sensible requirements to me (though I'm
still thinking about the exact details).
So in my scenario, somebody then does pony up the necessary
hardware. Think about *any* new port. Not everything happens at
once; there is one day when there is only one buildd, and another day
when there are three and two machines to donate as developer
machines. What I'm trying to get clear in my head is what the
procedure is for such new ports.
> usage; that's awkward, and will probably be done in daily, half-gig
> stages over two weeks or so, but it's not a major obstacle. There's no
> indication that it will actually happen though; amd64'll probably just
> be assumed to be popular enough as soon as it's in the archive, and as
> far as other architectures are concerned, even powerpc isn't remotely
> near popular enough to qualify.
The announcement lists i386, powerpc, ia64, and amd64 as the expected
set. If that's not accurate, it would be very nice to know now.
I have some other questions--more important than this one--but I'm
waiting, in part just so I can read the flood of messages, and maybe
get clarity without needing to pester anyone with them.
Thomas
Reply to: