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

Re: Upcoming changes to supported architectures



On 11478 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote:

>>  - If an architecture fails to be included in 2 successive official
>>    releases, it is moved out of the official archive (and away from the
>>    ftp-master.debian.org host).

>>     - We (as in ftpteam) are happy to help in any possible way in a move
>>       from a no-longer-supported architecture to a different platform[1],
>>       like providing all neccessary files to import currently existing
>>       suite in the target archive (think of .changes files).

> I feel I'm missing the full rationale for this change.  What are the new
> architectures in the pipe that space needs to be made for?

There are multiple bugs in the ftp.debian.org pseudopackage about
architectures wanting to get in.

> For that matter, the current ftp-master disk is 81% full, and that's
> with oldstable not yet purged from the pool, something which is now
> long overdue; so why is any architecture clean-up currently needed at
> all?

Cos some architectures just eat space that can be used otherwise. And
the current disk usage on ftpmaster isnt the only metric that counts.

Debian is a distribution, and distributions want to release. If an
architecture can't do that - its fine to have a port, but please dont
take any resource that could be taken by an architecture thats actually
able to release.


> If we aren't really running into resource constraints linked to the
> architecture count, it's a poor use of people's time to have to
> redeploy all of the ftp-master infrastructure on a separate host.

We *DO* run into resource constraints more often than we like it.

> And it's my understanding that arm is already intended to be dropped
> immediately post-lenny in favor of armel.

Yes. arm, m68k and hurd-i386 are the current candidates, with arm
(AFAIK) totally dying, for the other two I expect someone else to host
an archive. And maybe, at some time later, one of them coming back. But
thats future.

> In addition, as an alpha porter I'm of the opinion that the port
> should be discontinued for lenny+1, because I no longer get any
> benefit at all from it (all my alpha does anymore is take in
> electricity and spit out d-i daily builds + heat), so I'm very
> skeptical that anyone else will benefit from it either past the end of
> lenny's 2.5-year support cycle.  So I think there's room for dropping
> architectures here without forcibly kicking them off of ftp-master.

Fine, if everyone involved in stopping the support for alpha - ftpmaster
wont be in your way. If someone else thinks alpha is worth to keep - and
does the work to fulfill the basic rules we set (ie. keeps it in a
releaseable state), it stays in.

> Is this a unanimous decision of the ftp team?  You say that discussions were
> had at DebConf 8, but not all of the ftp team (or even all of the ftp
> masters) are present there...

I know that not all of us have been here. Where is the point?
JFTR, this was passed via an m68k porter, release people, other ftp
people, dpl and a dsa...

>> If you disagree - please provide sane alternative suggestions.
> In the absence of an explanation why this change is needed, I suggest "don't
> change what's not broken" as a sane alternative.

The fact that we currently have *no* guidelines at all is broken, so we fix it.

Now, we get complaints if decisions are made on a case by case basis. We
get complaints if we provide guidelines that are easy and clear. What do
people want?

-- 
bye, Joerg
<rvb> Dafür hat Ubuntu nen kleinen.

Attachment: pgpc5gYQEsj1X.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: