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

Re: Archive architecture qualification

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 03:32:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> We'll follow a similar sort of procedure to the release qualification
> stuff, starting with an open discussion on #debian-tech on OFTC on Friday
> (around 1200 UTC, 2005-12-30) and building up some pages on the wiki.

Okay, so we've got:

  (a) Logs! See,

  (b) Draft criteria, see:

We had people interested in Debian ports for arm, armeb, m68k, kfreebsd
and win32/reactos chatting.

At the moment that means:

 * release architectures: alpha, amd64, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc
 * potential release requalification: arm, m68k, s390, sparc
 * require archive requalification: arm, hurd-i386, m68k, s390, sparc
 * potential archive qualification: kfreebsd-i386 win32-i386, armeb

There was only a brief, fairly hypothetical discussion about supporting
architectures that wouldn't aim to become release architectures, so there are
still no particular plans to provide any special support.

There was some significant discussion about ABI stability; particularly
wrt the possibility of an ABI change for m68k in order to support ColdFire
CPUs (which are reportedly substantially faster than currently supported
m68k hardware). Note that architectures that are in the archive are
expected to handle ABI transitions smoothly, so that upgrades can be
handled with apt, not a reinstall.

Another thing worth noting is that we try to minimise the number of
architectures, so it's important to think about how to avoid having
multiple related architectures (like sparc/sparc64, i386/i686,
kfreebsd-i386/knetbsd-i386) before joining the archive.

Note that not all the criteria have a particular "correct" answer; though
the ones that don't have a "preferred" answer, and some justification
is probably needed in the event that's not your port's answer. In theory
it should be useful even for ports where we know the answer is "no" at the
moment (such as opensolaris).

I'm hopefully we'll be looking at actually adding and removing
architectures by the end of the month, so it'd be great if folks who
aren't going to be release architectures by that time (both ones in the
archive and not) would have a go at preparing an archive qualification
page. That's also the best way to demonstrate any problems in the

Possibly doing it on the wiki at a page named something like :


would be a good way to go.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: