On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 01:21:38PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> armhf
> -----
>
> Seems okay. Still in fucked_arches currently - should we remove it
> from there and promote it to a full release architecture?
Yes.
> hurd-i386
> ---------
>
> Is there time to add it to testing and get it out of
> {break,fucked}_arches?
I think it's not. If anything that would be for the beginning of the next
cycle, but not for this one. As KiBi said it would massively increase our
load with unblock requests while it's unlikely that everything's fixed up
in time.
I know that freezes drag on for a fair while, and I presume that several
patches for hurd might be applied to the package set in unstable by that time.
So we might have to deal with them either way.
> Would it make sense to release if it was still in break_ and/or
> fucked_arches?
No, not at all. It wouldn't be released at all at that point. (I.e. not copied
into stable.) I'm very uncomfortable having such a thing alongside our
regular architectures (even kfreebsd, which generally works for server stuff).
> ia64
> ----
>
> No real follow-up from porters. #638068 in initramfs-tools may be
> an issue.
Still feels very much on the fringe. We could look how good it works out with
some people waking up on the list. (OTOH "I can test it" is not that helpful.)
> mips
> ----
>
> Currently no porter box; being worked on. Some concern over
> stability of some buildds.
>
> mipsel
> ------
>
> Currently suffering from the loss of a buildd. Machine replacement
> is in progress, so hopefully won't be an issue for much longer.
Aye, I think the two will make it.
> s390
> ----
>
> No issues; may be last release in favour of s390x.
>
> s390x
> -----
>
> Seems okay. Still in fucked_arches currently - should we remove it
> from there and promote it to a full release architecture?
My general feeling is yes, if we want it in the release. Do you feel that it's
in the same shape as armhf?
Kind regards
Philipp Kern
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature