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

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:20:02 -0800]:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.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
> buildd.

  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."


Adeodato Simó
    EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

Reply to: