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

Re: ppc64el porter situation

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:06:14AM -0200, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Hello Adrian,

Hi Breno,

> Let me share my view as the only DD listed as ppc64el porter.

thanks for your reply.

Just to state it explicitely in case that was not clear, I do not have 
any problem with you personally or the ppc64el port in general.

I am just saying that I see a risk for the ppc64el port in the
unlikely case that IBM makes a sudden move away from PowerPC
during the lifetime of stretch.

> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:50:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Is a DM enough, if the only DD gets killed by a car [2] the day after
> > the release of stretch?
> The other DM is in the process of becoming a DD[1]. This might reduce
> the truck factor by half.
> [1] https://nm.debian.org/person/frediz

That's good news.

> > Second, all 4 committed porters seem to be employees of IBM.
> >
> > What happens if for whatever good or bad reason IBM decides in 2018
> > or 2019 to go away from ppc64el, and all 4 committed porters get fired?
> I understand your point here. ppc64el architecture is IBM's current and
> future focus. ppc64el is also planned for POWER9 and beyond. While it's
> hard to predict what future business decisions IBM may make, we believe
> the future of ppc64el and OpenPower systems looks good.
> There are many other distros that support ppc64el at this moment, as
> Ubuntu, Fedora, SLES, RHEL and others coming. So, your point is not
> Debian specific, but, generic to the Linux ecossystem.

Debian is in a different situation, the porters of these distributions 
are likely employed by the company behind the distribution and not
by IBM.

> > The wording of the porter commitment is already limited to "I intend
> > to", and there is the single point of failure that one business
> > decision by IBM might reduce the number of porters immediately from 4
> > to 0.
> Right, since ppc64el machines are not desktop/personal machines, it is
> harder to get porters, compared to more pervasive architectures, as amd64.
> I hope to have more DD porters in the future, as ppc64el become more
> prevalent.
> lso, there are many other hardware manufactors and partners that relies
> on Linux for the Power platform[1]. In my opinion, the Power platform is
> bigger than IBM at this moment.
> [1] http://openpowerfoundation.org/membership/current-members/


That's also an impressive list of companies, isn't it?
When the one company that mattered switched to a different platform,
the whole platform collapsed immediately.

The whole Power platform also seems to be mostly around IBM.

> On the other side, if there is a requirements for being a porter that
> says that the porter might be able to fix difficult issues on kernel and
> toolchain, then it is a different story. I do not believe that this
> requirement exists.

It is not a requirement for every porter, but that skill is required.

Debian got burned in wheezy in the sparc port when no porter was 
available to fix a broken kernel after the release.

That was an embarrassment to the Debian stability and quality that noone 
wants to ever see again.



       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Reply to: