Andreas Barth wrote:
I think it makes sense to shorten the list of arches we wait upon for testing migration, but I fail to see the usefulness of removing an arch from testing.* Matthew Palmer (firstname.lastname@example.org) [050313 01:05]:On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:12:12PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:Er, packages *do* eventually get built; they just don't get built in any kind of FIFO order.Er, no. Unless there's some sort of aging process (not yet described in the threads here) which will result in an extra package called zappa in section x11 from eventually being promoted above a package aardvark in section admin, it is entirely possible that package will never be built. All it requires is for the rate of new packages entering the queue before zappa to be equal to or greater than the rate of packages leaving the queue due to having been built or removed.If that happens for a too long period, we might consider such an architecture to be too slow to keep up, and will eventually discuss about kicking it out of the architectures we wait for testing migration at all, or even kicking it out of testing at all. Not waiting for such an arch has happened and might happen again.
You may not see the usefulness of testing, but I run production servers on it because there are just too many packages that are too old and buggy or not available in the old stable release. Yes, I've only used i386 and PPC, but that should not exclude that functionality from the users of those architectures that are not as popular (even if you need a log scale to see their relative popularity).