Re: summarizing arch status

[Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>]

* Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [060604 11:52]:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 11:24:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > AFAICS, we have the following architectures we released sarge with and
> > which are currently no release candidates for etch:
> > - m68k:
> >   - some subarches require 2.2 and/or 2.4 kernels - I don't think we
> >     will support that (but we could also just drop these
> >     subarchitectures, like we did for 80386 with sarge).
> 
> I don't think we should be keeping 2.2 around, period.  If an architecture
> needs 2.2 in order to release, it shouldn't be a release arch.

Fully agreed. And also s/arch/subarch/.

> >   - traditionally weak with keeping up, but currently in good shape
> 
> I don't agree that http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png
> shows it "in good shape".  We can expect the build load to get worse, not
> better, with a push for the release...

"good shape" was definitly the wrong word - rather "not as bad as it
used to be". :)


> > - sparc:
> >   - kernel support? we had spontanous reboots there.
> 
> There is a kernel in place on the buildds that's proving stable, but it's
> *not* the kernel from sarge etch; it's newer even than the one currently in
> sid.  AIUI, there are concerns about having to run the buildds in such a
> configuration in the long term.
> 
> The ideal fix here is to get the necessary kernel changes backported into
> the Debian 2.6.16 kernel package.

yes, or in whatever is going to be the kernel used for etch.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/