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

Re: vancouver revisited

[Please do not CC me, I'm on the list]

Em Qua, 2005-08-24 às 11:36 +0100, Alastair McKinstry escreveu:
> Yes, there is: one of the more frequent uses of minority architectures 
> is diversity in internet-facing machines: I've run sparc, powerpc and 
> MIPs machines in this role, and am currently running linksys (mips) box 
> as my firewall / gateway / DMZ (doing more than that, of course). The 
> security and stability of stable is whats important to me: it'll never 
> run X or mozilla ;-)

So you're saying you would miss the security support and 'versions won't
change' properties of the release?

I believe the porters themselves could work with the security and
release teams and do their own release, and keep tracking the security
fixes and stuff themselves, if they don't get to meet the requirements.

Meeting the requirements, though, would be a more important goal; so
just doing a good job of maintaining the port can take you there.

> For this reason I think its important to work on the underlying _real_ 
> techincal problem: some way of fixing the toolchain issues that make 
> having the archs a problem. Solutions such as autobuilding the arch with 
> upcoming toolchains in experimental, pulling more test suites into the 
> build so that the packages are not just built but run on the archs, etc.

Such automatic stuff is not fully helpful; if porters want an arch
surviving as a release arch they sure can step up and do the work.

What I see in this whole proposal is not a "we don't want these arches
supported" mindset, but a "we need to improve the day-to-day maintaince
of our work on all arches, or our release will keep suffering"
translating to "porters, do a better work, you're overloading us".

See ya,

kov@debian.org: Gustavo Noronha <http://people.debian.org/~kov>
Debian:  <http://www.debian.org>  *  <http://www.debian-br.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: