This one time, at band camp, Philipp Kern said:
> Dear Debian system administrators,
>
> we are currently preparing the architecture (re)qualification for
> squeeze. It would be nice to get your input about the following
> architectures:
>
> * alpha
Seems fine right now, although the lack of an active porter community
(this is an outside impression only, so may be wrong) is worrying.
> * armel
Seems fine, would like to see all the buildds become official buildds
(DSAed, etc). We would also like to see all of the buildds/porterboxes
running a stock Debian kernel. Self hosting is important to us for
maintainability. Lastly, this architecture is one of the ones where an
explosion of sites is something that is possible, and we'd like to avoid
that if possible.
> * hppa
Not very stable for the last several years. It's becoming increasingly
difficult to be willing to support it.
> * ia64
No complaints.
> * kfreebsd-{amd64,i386}
As far as I know, there isn't a working installer, so we can't even
begin to think about this one as having an official set of buildds and
so on. Once there is a working installer, we're happy to work with the
respective porter groups to set up buildds and porter boxes. Once
that's done, we see no real issues, aside from the usual hiccoughs of
fitting different arches/kernels/userland utilities into our management
setup. There appears to be good work going on in d-i for supporting
these 2, so we don't anticipate any real issues long term.
> * mips
> * mipsel
We don't appear to have any machines capable of running distro kernels
for these, which is troubling. We're not all that comfortable with
arches that can't self host, again. There is some hardware pending, so
this may change,
> * powerpc
Seems fine. It might be nice to have a few newer machines with OOB
support and so on, but there aren't any show stoppers.
> * s390
No DSAed buildds. Additionally there appears to be only a sole porter
(which is worrying in itself) who seems to have some difficulty being
responsive in a timely manner. Possibly if we get the
buildds/porterboxes all DSAed and have more direct contact with the
hosters, this will become less of a concern.
Zivit has offered to help (thanks!), which will help significantly, but
we'd like to also avoid making them a single point of failure for the
port.
> * sparc
Seems currently fine, barring some slight instability on schroeder
recently, although that looks like it might have been more to do with
the setup than the architecture. I'd like to see what happens with the
sparc64 port.
Cheers,
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ,''`. Stephen Gran |
| : :' : sgran@debian.org |
| `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer |
| `- http://www.debian.org |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature