On 25.02.2016 22:45, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:54:30PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:On 02/25/2016 06:41 PM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:Packages are auto-removed from testing when they are RC-buggy. Could we do something similar in unstable, for Debian's ports?We have a testing distribution in debian-ports?We don't, which is a shame. This badly hinders stuff like porting d-i to a -ports architecture or making an unofficial release (mostly because of not knowing when to binNMU and in-archive binNMUs conflicting with yours).From
I cross built gcc-5 for m68k, sh4 and sparc64 (including gnat). However this is a pain if you have to deal with different binNMUs, either on the release archs or the ports. Cross built openjdk-8 for sh4 and sparc64 as well, however no success so far with m68k. Two reasons for this: mismatching binNMUs, or binNMUs not done across all archs, and binary-indep -dev packages, which make the situation just worse when unstable is out of sync, and should be forbidden for a set of core packages from my point of view.
But it appears like Steven meant official release archs. And here, it would practically mean declaring everything but i386/amd64 unimportant -- I'd say that while something like half of maintainers are helpful towards porters, a big part ignores every architecture they don't personally use, and a small minority is outright hostile.
Well, if you see some architecture popping up as a release architecture for years now, you see the release team waving these archs for years on the promise that things will improve despite release criteria not being met, and you don't see any improvement, why would you care? Even security updates on some release architectures don't build. I was told at a Debconf taking Debian as hostage when asking for the removal of such architectures, but as seen with kfreebsd, this seems to work fine as well.
Matthias