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

Re: Debian Archive architecture removals

On 20/04/15 at 00:22 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
> As the jessie release approaches, the ftp-team have been reviewing the
> status of the architectures in unstable.
> Neither sparc nor hurd-i386 are going to release with jessie and we are
> therefore looking at their future in unstable.
> =====
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=745938
> Given the current lack of proper kernel support and the lack of upstream
> toolchain support, we intend to remove sparc *at the latest*, three
> months after the release of jessie. This could be avoided if there is a
> team of Debian Developers putting in a serious effort to revive this
> port, thus the 3 months timeframe. If this happens, please keep track in
> an easy reviewable way, so we can recheck it before actual removal (for
> example list of closed bugs, uploads, upstream patch work, ...).
> It is noted that the sparc64 port is likely to be a more suitable basis
> for any future SPARC work but that nobody has approached us about
> inclusion.
> hurd-i386
> =========
> Well before wheezy was released, we talked with the HURD porters, and
> they agreed to re-check their archive status just after the wheezy
> release[1]. The plan was to move the HURD port off ftp-master if it
> wasn't included as a technology preview or full release arch. HURD
> wasn't a part of Wheezy, and it's highly unlikely it will be in Jessie.
> We'll be removing HURD, as discussed, from the ftp-master archive after
> the Jessie release.
> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2013/05/msg00018.html


I fully understand that those architectures cause an additional load on
ftpmasters (and various other teams). But I've always been very proud
that Debian was able to accomodate a wide variety of architectures and
kernels (even if I've not done much to achieve that). I find it sad that
we will soon have to say "oh, and there are also people maintaining an
unofficial Hurd port outside Debian".

I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures
in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and
other teams. I'm not entirely clear on the status of debian-ports.org,
and of what the current downsides of using debian-ports are. Maybe it's
just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as Debian's official
way to host second-class architectures. Maybe there's more to it. What
are the current downsides of moving hurd-i386 and sparc to debian-ports?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: