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

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal



On Monday 22 August 2005 12.58, Marc Haber wrote:

> I can imagine that for archs with less than 50 machines reporting to
> popcon it could be possible to have some kind of registration
> mechanism.

Uh, please don't add huge technical overhead for corner cases that will 
rarely happen, if ever.  I'm confident that unless a port is really showing 
severe neglect, nobody will ever be interested in a precise body count.  

Personally, I think the 50 users limit is just silly.  Let's stick with what 
really matters:  can we (the Debian project) maintain the port?  Thus I 
propose we only limit on the number of developers:  are there people who 
are willing and competent to maintain kernel, boot loader, platform 
specific installer bits, libc and toolchain?

Furthermore, I think port maintainers should be much more aggressive to 
exclude packages from being built on their port.  For example (without 
having the experience) it might not make sense to build KDE3 for PDP8 or 
ENIAC - yet the packages are built and take a HUGE chunk of buildd time on 
every upload.  Why not have a per-port blacklist (maintained by the port 
maintainers, not the package maintainers) of packages that are not suitable 
for a port, and just put up a section in the release notes (or wherever) on 
why such-and-such packages are not available.  If enough people want them, 
someobdy will certainly run to put up an archive on apt-get.org with 
unofficial packages.

(discalimer: I only run x86 myself, so perhaps this is a stupid idea.)

cheers
-- vbi

-- 
Die große Koalition ist die formierte Gesellschaft des Parlaments zur
Abwehr mißgünstiger Wählereinflüße.
		-- Helmar Nahr

Attachment: pgpVWSFqXWzMq.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: