Re: hurd-i386 qualification for Wheezy
* Adam D. Barratt (adam@adam-barratt.org.uk) [120519 20:06]:
> On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 17:29 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > - About buildd-dsa, we are fine with a DSA'd buildd, if DSA is happy
> > to maintain it, they will however probably have to learn a few Hurd
> > things? We don't know to what extend DSA have to tinker with the
> > machine, but we would be happy to help.
> I think the prevailing view recently has been that having DSAed buildds
> and porter boxes is generally preferable; this might be something to
> cover under the above discussion with DSA.
For security updates (i.e. after release), we need two DSAed buildds.
Having DSAed buildds allows also to do autosigning, which shortens the
time span for getting builds into the archive. This isn't strictly
required, but not doing so will sometimes lead to annoying delays for
testing transitions (when the architecture is in testing, and the mark
"this arch is too slow" removed).
(Please also note that as Adam pointed out any new arch will start to
live with "arch is too slow" and "packages might break in testing",
because otherwise next to all testing transitions will be broken
(until more or less all packages are moved to testing).)
Andi
Reply to: