Re: ppc64el porter situation

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:06:59PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Hi,

Hi Aurelien,

>...
> To me it looks like they are really skilled for that job. Do you have
> actual facts showing the contrary?

Niels said that I shouldn't hesitate to let the release team know when
I believe there is an issue they have overlooked.[1]

I do believe that there is a risk in the ppc64el port in the unlikely 
case that IBM suddenly moves away from PowerPC, and that is currently 
not mentioned in the architecture requalification table.

This is not about past work done by the ppc64el porters, this is about
a specific single point of failure that could happen in the future.

In my opinion this is a risk, and the release team should be aware
of it when making the decision regarding architectures in stretch.

I do appreciate the answers from Breno and you that addressed some
of the things I brought up.

I do expect the release team to read this discussion and take it
into consideration.

I am not involved in the decision regarding ports in stretch,
and any decision is fine with me.

> Aurelien

cu
Adrian

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2016/10/msg00131.html

-- 

       "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