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

Re: hurd-i386 qualification for Wheezy


Very quickly following up on a possible nomenclature issue and a couple
of other things.

On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 17:29 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> - We of course aim at tech preview for wheezy only, not a full
> release. Our goal is to establish a testing distribution for wheezy
> which does not block others ports (i.e. so-called fuckedarch), and get
> a full testing for wheezy+1.

That's not what the phrase "tech preview" was used to mean for
kfreebsd-* at least.

They were added to testing via {fucked,broken}arches some time in
mid-2009 (it's mentioned in a dda posting in July, the britney config
change didn't hit get until August), declared to be release
architectures in October and were also removed from "fuckedarches" soon
after - i.e. kfreebsd-* specific issues became RC and out-of-dateness on
those architectures was a blocker for migration.  At some point before
February 2010 (when I committed the change which had been lurking
uncommitted on the live code branch) they were removed from brokenarches
too and installability issues became RC.

I'm not sure we've ever released with an architecture which was in
either broken or fucked, but hopefully someone will correct me if I'm
mistaken on that.

> Some questions/open issues for the release team:
> - How are discussions about the concerns-* fields coordinated? Is the
> release team going to inquire those, or should we?

Either works, although I suspect we can manage to ask ourselves about
the {S,}RM ones... ;-)  Feel free to ask DSA and the security team,
preferably somewhere public that could be pointed to for the record.

> - About buildd-dsa, we are fine with a DSA'd buildd, if DSA is happy
> to maintain it, they will however probably have to learn a few Hurd
> things? We don't know to what extend DSA have to tinker with the
> machine, but we would be happy to help.

I think the prevailing view recently has been that having DSAed buildds
and porter boxes is generally preferable; this might be something to
cover under the above discussion with DSA.



Reply to: