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

Re: architecture-specific release criteria - requalification needed

[Debian-armeb Porting Team]
> However, how does one get "armeb" recognised as a valid option for
> the graphs on http://popcon.debian.org?  Will simply sending in
> valid survey results with armeb as the architecture cause the graphs
> on that page to list armeb separately?

Yes.  The url to the port page might be incorrect, but that is a minor
detail.  Report a bug against the popularity-contest package with the
port page URL to have this fixed.

So, please enable popularity-contest on the machines in question, so
we can get a count on them. :)

> We are keeping patches[7] for the armeb port separate, and are ready
> to contribute them now, or at any future time that is more
> appropriate.  Another chicken-and-egg - are package maintainers
> expected to accept patches for architectures that are not yet
> official?

It depend on the patch.  Personally, I welcome patches making the
software more portable and less buggy, and I consider compile problems
or unable to run on any platform a bug.  On the other hand, if the
patch is cludgy, it will need to be rewritten.

> Chicken-and-egg again.  We need automatic support for keeping the
> autobuilders busy.  The machines we currently use run 24x7, but the
> feeding of items to build and the determination of build
> dependencies is currently done manually (which is very tedious).  We
> really need to be hooked into the buildd infrastructure.

You know it is possible to set up your own buildd infrastructure?  It
has been done in the past, and will probably happen in the future too.
You do not need to wait for the buildd.debian.org people to have time
to help you to set up your own buildd. :)

Reply to: