Re: Debian/ppc64el feasiability to become an official architecture
On 28/07/14 22:35, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 25/07/14 01:14, peter green wrote:
>> When you are added to testing you will be added as a "broken and fucked"
>> (release team's terminology not mine) architecture. To get out of this state you
>> will need to get and keep your port in a healthy state in testing. That will
>> mean fixing (in some cases through NMUs) issues that are blocking migration of
>> packages you need (whether or not those issues are related to your architecture)
>> and fixing any architecture specific build failures as quickly as possible
>> (since when you are in the "broken and fucked" state your builds will not be
>> blockers for testing migration so a new upload that breaks your architecture
>> will be able to migrate).
>> Once your port reaches a healty state in testing (most packages present,
>> virtually no packages outdated, very few architecture specific packages
>> uninstallable), the release team will remove the "broken and fucked" status and
>> you will become a release architecture. You then need to maintain your port in a
>> healthy condition until release time.
> I don't know how it has been done in the past, but it seems to me like it would
> be easier to add any new architecture as a normal "first class" architecture.
> Given that if we add a new architecture to testing is because it's already
> keeping up and in a reasonable state, then it shouldn't block packages, so that
> shouldn't be a problem. That sounds like less pain than adding it as a broken
> architecture and having to unbreak it afterwards. But as I've said, I don't know
> how it's been done in the past so maybe I'm missing something.
I've been told on #debian-release that that can't be done because britney can't
"bootstrap" an architecture in testing. Not yet.