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

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

> On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:52:22AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> It got proposed because no one was able to give correct explanations
>> about why it hadn't been included. 
> Heh. I'm almost morbidly curious enough to ask what you think the
> "correct" explanation of why it hasn't been included is, except that,
> well, I'm not.

The only reason amd64 didn't get added and still hasn't been added is
that some mirros don't have enough space/bandwith to cope with another

That is for _sid_. Inclusion of sarge (as the misphrased GR wanted at
some point) was always blocked by not being in sid.

> For those playing along at home, Martin replied to Josselin's query at
> the time with his DPL hat on:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/07/msg00253.html

|  - Some technical AMD64 questions: ftpmaster had some specific
|    questions about the AMD64 port they want to see answered.  Also,
|    an LSB person recently expressed some technical concerns (see [1]).

Ftp-master (meaning James here) never ever did express any questions
or any reply. Only second hand we got the information that suddenly
there were no more questions.

As for LSB issue that was just misunderstanding of the port status and
cleared up later in the thread. And the port inclusion policy (first
point in the mail) was always said that it will allow amd64 in anyway.

> Josselin's reaction to that explanation, which remains completely
> correct as far as it goes (though perhaps focussing too much on the
> "write a policy") is pretty much why I don't think explanations are a
> particularly useful part of addressing these controversies.

Without the explanation the contious weekly questions why amd64 wasn't
in debian would have continued. With it there was a small discussion
and then a lot less noise.

The explanation also ment we could give up asking for inclusion as
none of the (remaining) points were anything that could be changed.

>> I still believe it was a mistake to release without amd64. 
> We didn't release without amd64; the sarge release for amd64 is on
> amd64.debian.net.

You (as in Debian) released without amd64. Now don't start claiming
the ports own release is suddenly official when everybody maintained
the opposite all this time.


Reply to: