(wishlist) Re: edos.debian.net
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 11:40:58AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Friday 22 December 2006 15:25, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > m68k can be removed from testing and amd64 should be removed from
> > > stable...
> > Why ? etch-m68k is alive and kicking.
>
> Because it makes the statistics less useful: if you look at
> http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/ you will see that m68k has the most
> broken packages, thus contributing heavily to the number of packages which
> are broken on "some" arch (see there).
>
> The "which packages are broken on some archs" is a useful indicator, but it's
> not/less useful for etch, if architectures which are not including in etch
> are included.
>
> And, no matter how alive m68k "really" is, m68k will not be part of etch, this
> has been decided and announced three month ago:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/09/msg00020.html
So your request to edos.debian.net is 'please remove m68k from etch'
statistics which is something very different from testing (even if
they currently match). (m68k might qualify again for release in the
future thanks to the impressive work already achieved on so-called
'rogue' autobuilders and such).
On my side, I would ask edos.debian.net maintainers to add, if not too
difficult, the kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 architectures as is
already the case on packages.debian.org (and, why not, hurd-i386,
armeb, m32r and other prospective ports).
Thanks to all parties involved.
Best regards,
Frédéric Lehobey
Reply to: