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

Re: Architecture qualification meeting for Wheezy

On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 23:19 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> As for meeting preps, I must admit that I found it rather difficult to
> work out what needs to be prepared.

I was largely hoping to avoid discussions around what people's feelings
on arches were and concentrate more on technical points.  If you want to
suggest that archX should become a release architecture, or archY should
be dropped then being able to show that more than Z% of severity >=
important packages either don't build, or are buggy, or take five times
longer to build than every other architecture put together, or whatever,
on that architecture would be preferable.

I'm not suggesting that we spend weeks analysing every little detail of
every architecture's performance, it would just be good to be able to
rely more on objective rather than subjective data.  Not that "I think
i386 sucks" isn't a useful data point still.  :-)

>  * No imported packages (from -ports).
>    - s390x still have libproxy (according to projectb).  I am told they
>      are working on it and presumbly this will be fixed before long.
>    - hurd-i386 /may/ have an issue here[3]

libproxy/s390x is waiting for iceweasel, which was itself blocked behind
a chain of other packages until the end of last month.  Now it "just"
fails to build, although that's being worked on.



Reply to: