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

Re: hurd-i386 qualification for Wheezy

On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 09:53 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 06:08:16PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On 19.05.2012 19:04, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > >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.
> > 
> > Anyone? :-)
> > 
> > Opinions as to whether it makes sense to release an architecture in
> > either of those states would also be welcome.
> > 
> I do not think it is sensible to release an architecture that is in
> broken/fucked. That's what something like debian ports is for.
> In order to release hurd, even as a tech preview, we need hurd in
> testing and users actually testing it. This is a problem at this stage
> because:

An almost up-to-date web page about GNU/Hurd is available at:

> * there isn't a functional D-I port yet

It work perfectly well as far as I know. There are still bugs to be
handled by the DMs, for example grub2: #670069, #634799, #670186,

> * it doesn't support debian style networking (ifupdown etc)

ifupdown is supported, see wnpp bug #672212

> * it doesn't support any meaningful available new hardware (USB, SATA)

SATA support is in the works.

> * its archive coverage is far lower than required

What is required, currently the percentage is 77%. How large was it when
kFreeBSD was released as a tech preview in Squeeze.

Take a look at the bug page, to find out how the percentage could 

39 important bugs with patches
14 normal bug with patches
7 forwarded important and normal bugs
4 bugs pending uploads

The introduction of GNU/Hurd in testing is not only in the hands of the

Reply to: