[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 Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:47:37AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:38:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 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

Well, the user don't care, they point their apt sources at :


and everything works well for them, given the warning about possibly delays in
security updates (altough the nonexistence of security.<arch>.debian.org
should hint them to that anyway).

> don't match the Vancouver proposal, in which there would be

I don't care about the Vancounver proposal all that much, since its basic
premise are the dropping of the minority arches, that is no stable release, no
testing infrastructure, no security updates. If that is not what was meant,
then a new announcement clarifying the points is in order.

> architectures that would be released and officially supported but not
> distributed from ftp.d.o.

I think the vancouver proposal, or at least its announcement was profundly
lacking in clarity, and didn't clearly separate the three different problems
and their solutions :

  1) mirror bandwidth and space issues.

  2) release management and autobuilders.

  3) security update for stable releases.

Am i not right in thinking that those where the key issues, and you that was
there, do you not think it would be welcome of the vancouver-cabal :) to
clarify their remedies for each of those points separatedly ? 

> 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.

well, it probably sounds offensive because the proposed solution is offensive
in the first place, isn't it ? 

And ports, well, its all nice, but how do you measre inegality in port
treatment then ? will we have scp or something such ?


Sven Luther

Reply to: