Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status
On 2013-12-23 00:54, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> On 22 December 2013 16:56, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
>> Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org> (2013-12-22):
>>> On 28 November 2013 20:04, Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote:
>>>> * Architecture Status
>>>> * ia64 in danger
>>>> * sparc/ppc/mips/kfreebsd at risk
>>>> * s390 dropped from testing
>>>
>>> Is "ppc" - powerpc or ppc64?
>>
>> powerpc. (For ppc64, same answer as below.)
>>
>>> Is ppc64 looking healthy enought to become a release architecture for
>>> jessie?
>>
>> Not in the archive, therefore not something we can release.
>>
>>> What about x32? Is it going to become a release architecture for
>>> jessie?
>>
>> Same answer as above.
>
> Pardon my ignorance but:
>
> * how do architectures move from ports to the archive?
They are accepted into the archive by the FTP masters. This step is (as
I understand it) largely between the FTP masters and the
porters/advocates of that architecture (see [1]).
[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html
> * And does such a move require them to become "official" architectures?
Not sure what "official" is defined as (in this context). But I suppose
getting an architecture into sid is "more official" than having it on
ports. That said; it does not make it a release architecture.
> * What's the difference between "release", "official", and "ports"
> architectures?
I believe the short story is something like:
A "release" architecture is an architecture included in the release.
This implies that the architecture is "in testing" (e.g. like amd64) or
is being accepted into testing by the release team. Build regressions
on such architectures are RC by default.
A "ports" architecture is on solely hosted on debian-ports and is not in
sid. It cannot be considered as a release architecture.
Again, not sure what "official" is defined as for this context. If it
is an architecture in the official archive (i.e. in sid). Then the
architecture has been bootstrap into sid (or is being bootstrapped into
sid). Such an architecture /can/ be considered as a release
architecture by the release team.
NB: The above may be over simplified in some cases.
Maybe we should create a flow diagram of the "ports"-life cycle ?
> * Do the the endangered architectures imply removal from the archive,
> to elsewhere? (ports or /dev/null)
>
The release team will generally remove the endangered architectures from
testing. What happens from there on is beyond the jurisdiction of the
release team (or, at least, beyond the jurisdiction that the release
team wants). Though it has been implied by the FTP masters and the DSA
that they are (both) generally opposed to keeping architectures in sid,
which are no longer (or unlike to become) a release architecture.
~Niels
Reply to: