Re: architecture-specific release criteria - requalification needed
Quoting Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>:
> * Ingo Juergensmann (ij@2005.bluespice.org) [050921 16:53]:
> > What about such ports like m32r? Some embedded devices might run that port,
> > but the user doesn't even know about which arch he's using nor that he's
> > using Debian and certainly not that he is intended to give a "hey, i'm using
> > that port" message to Debian...
>
> Well, it doesn't necessarily be the user himself. But if a port is only
> used on embedded devices, the question arrises if it is necessary to
> include that port in testing and stable.
1. If the user theirself don't know about using Debian on the
embedded device, I'm sure that someone knows about the fact
and can easily provide information about it. E.g. we all
know about the Nokia 770 arm machines. If we can believe
that Nokia sold more than fifty gadgets, the goal is reached.
2. Even for embedded systems, stable releases are a good thing.
(Easier to follow GPL rules of having sources available for
some years. Easier to build/install additional software, if
one knows, which Debian release is used. Easier to clone.)
Btw., IMHO, the new release criteria are very sensible, maybe
with the exception of the 98%-rule, which might be too strict.
Cheers, WB
Reply to: