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

Re: ports.debian.org (Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:38:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:10:30PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > #include <hallo.h>
> > * Colin Watson [Mon, Mar 14 2005, 02:40:56PM]:
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:31:30PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > > > I'd propose to use a less "discriminating" name for the scc archive.
> > > > What about ports.debian.org (which coincidentally already exists and
> > > > http-wise points to http://www.debian.org/ports/)?
> > > 
> > > I like this idea. SCC was a working codename that I think was originally
> > > intended to be changed as soon as somebody thought of something better,
> > > but nobody ever quite got round to it ...
> > 
> > Does it sound discriminating because you associcate that with real life?
> > Is "second class port" be a better name? (scp.d.o)? Or "non-releaseable
> > ports", nrp.d.o?

What Christoph said about second-class anything; and "non-releaseable"
is inaccurate, because whether or not an architecture is distributed
from ftp.d.o is orthogonal to releaseability, and the Vancouver proposal
envisages releasing at least one architecture from the secondary mirror
network (see the paragraph starting "Also, since the original purpose of
the SCC proposal was ...").

> I have proposed tier-1 ports for the main arches, tier-2 ports for the other
> ready ports but dropped from official support, and tier-3 ports for
> in-development ports.

My problem with that is that I think we (and more importantly, our
users) would always have to look up what these numbers meant. Using
words instead of numbers would be preferable. Furthermore your tiers
don't match the Vancouver proposal, in which there would be
architectures that would be released and officially supported but not
distributed from ftp.d.o.

The fundamental idea I'm trying to capture is "less popular" or
"minority interest" or something, but I can't think of a way to do that
that (a) doesn't sound offensive and (b) isn't incredibly wordy. "ports"
is the best I've heard so far.

Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@debian.org]

Reply to: