Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?
* Andreas Jochens (email@example.com) [050822 12:56]:
> On 05-Aug-22 11:48, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Andreas Jochens (firstname.lastname@example.org) [050822 11:36]:
> > > I understand that the amd64 port has to be recompiled for the
> > > final inclusion into the official archive because the current amd64
> > > packages have not been built by DDs. But currently more than 10% of
> > > the unmodified source packages from 'unstable' FTBFS. It will likely
> > > take many months, if not years, for amd64 to get anywhere near to the
> > > requested 98% mark again.
> > Come one. Packages which are known as buggy (= have FTBFS RC-bugs) are
> > of course counted as, well, buggy. Though of course our hope is that the
> > number of such packages goes down, both by removals and bug fixing.
> > > If not, what does the 98% rule really mean?
> > "Your port needs to be able to and does build the vast majority of the
> > archive before we consider it fitting for release." That there are more
> This is of course a fully reasonable requirement. I hope that the final
> policy will use these words instead of the "98% rule" which will likely
> cause misunderstandings.
> Moreover, I think that the release team should have the power to decide
> if this general requirement is fulfilled. This seems to be better than
> specifying some arbitrary and debatable figure which will most probably
> lead to useless discussions and flames about numbers.
Well, my current understanding is that there is a number relevant for
archive inclusion that is about 50% (and decided by the ftp-masters),
and another which is 98% which is for release inclusion and in the end
of course decided by the release team.