Re: my thoughts on the Vancouver Prospectus
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 01:16:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >The ftp-masters are mandated by the DPL to handle the debian
> >infrastructure,
> >not to decide what arches debian should support or not.
>
> This is not the case; ftpmaster's role has historically included at what
> point architectures can be included in the archive (and in sh's case, at
> what point they should be removed), and the release manager's role has
> included at what point an architecture is suitable for release.
Ok, point taken.
> For an earlyish example of an RM (in this case me) setting explicit
> requirements for considering an architecture for release, see:
>
> >There are four ports, any of which may want to try for a woody release:
> >hurd-i386, mips, hppa and ia64. If they do, they need to ensure that
> >their port has stabilised and is ready for mainstream use, that the
> >relevant required, important and standard packages have all been ported,
> >that they have a functioning autobuilder (or two) that can keep up with
> >unstable (and is keeping up with unstable) and that it's built a fair
> >chunk of optional and extra, and they need to ensure that they can get
> >boot-floppies working in the above time frame.
>
> -- http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2001/05/msg00003.html
>
> I'm not aware of Martin undelegating those classes of decisions.
Well, i believe that previous to Marting as DPL, none of them where officially
delegates. I might be wrong though, but i think one of the first acts of
Martin as DPL was to discuss with them and officialize the delegation.
> In the broader sense, of course, no the ftpmasters don't decide what
> architectures Debian will support -- just those that'll be supported in
> the archive proper. AMD64 is an example of an architecture that falls in
> between those two categories.
They still have an unbalanced power of decision which was applied unilateraly
in the vancouver proposal.
> >[...] and they hold us hostage [...]
> >Friendly,
>
> It seems odd to pretend to be friendly towards people you consider
> hostage takers. Or to call people you claim to be friendly towards
> "hostage takers".
Well, i belive, like Andreas, that debian will only succeed if we all have a
friendly attitude toward each other, and are all in this because we have fun
in it. Now, you can critic friends, i believe, especially if you think they
are behaving wrongly, i have been criticed such, and have criticed others, but
we still are all parts of the same comunity, and hopefully will have fun
drinking beers together in helsinsksi or whatever.
Now, the vancouver proposal has some real problem this way, since i believe
that it tries to take the project in a certain direction where not everyone
wants to go, and brings with it some real risk of an actual fork of the
project over this.
Also i wonder how some of our sponsors feel about this, like how HP would feel
if we were to drop hppa and ia64, would they still like us ? Or Sun, who (used
to ?) donate(d) hardware for our infrastructure.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: