Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
> On 09/30/2016 06:08 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> I strongly /suspect/ that "no porters" for powerpc will imply the
>> removal of powerpc for Stretch. It may or may not be moved to ports
>> (assuming someone is willing to support it there).
> So, I take this as a "no" for the offer from me and Christoph Biedel to take
> over the powerpc port for Stretch?
My statement above was made based on the assumption stated in the first
line of Mathieu's mail, which was "Assume there are no powerpc porters
As for "porter qualification"
We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the
roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for
Jessie. However, we ended up with a completely broken and unbootable
That was an embarrassment to the Debian stability and quality
reputation that I never - ever - want to repeat.
(For avoidance of doubt: I want to ensure that release architectures
"just work(tm)" and I have no desire to blame that volunteer).
If I am to support powerpc as a realease architecture for Stretch, I
need to know that there are *active* porters behind it committed to
keeping it in the working. People who would definitely catch such
issues long before the release. People who file bugs / submit patches etc.
If you need inspiration: Have a look at the [automatic testing of
ppc64el images]. Or the [arm64 machines on ci.debian.net] with
comparable results to amd64. This is the sort of thing that inspires
confidence in the ports for me and I think we should have vastly more of.
[automatic testing of ppc64el images]:
[arm64 machines on ci.debian.net]: