Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:20:02 -0800]:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > The only differentiating requirement for scc, as opposed to the other
> > "part of Debian" architectures, seems to be download share. That won't
> > suddenly change.
> You are incorrect,
No, he is not.
> and my example remains, and I'm wondering how the
> procedure would work. The proposal does not require SCC archs to have
> developer machines, and only requires the existence of a single
Please, have a look at the Proposal and notice that there are three
_lists_ of requirements, each of them referring to one of the three
possible categories for an arch. In the order they appear in the mail,
these lists are:
- one of 10 entries, listing what is needed to be a "release arch"
- one of only one entry, stating what is "roughly needed" to be on
ftp.debian.org and thus, be mirrored by all mirrors
- one of 9 entries, listing what is needed for the arch to be
accepted in Debian at all, that is, to be in ports.debian.org
The confusion comes because is not crystal clear that "not all release
architectures are in ftp.debian.org, but that some of them will live
in ports.debian.org". For example, as per the proposal, ia64 and
powerpc are release architectures but are not in ftp.debian.org, thus
not mirrored everywhere.
So, to clearly answer your question from your previous mail:
> All the stuff is on scc; how do we transfer it back? Will it be easy,
> or a major obstacle?
There is no transfer needed at all, IOW the capability to do releases
from ports.debian.org exists (and is a very good thing, as Colin
Watson points out in <[🔎] 20050314135127.GD30099@riva.ucam.org>).
Still, the Release Managers should comment on their willingness to
make a certain scc arch a release architecture at an advanced stage in
the preparation of a release. In my view, this is one of the few
scenarios that I can think of them exercising their veto power: "Yes,
you meet all the requirements, but as we're 2 months away from
releasing we veto its inclusion _right now_. We put it first on our
list of goals for the next release."
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.