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

Re: Architecture qualification

On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 20:24 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 01:21:38PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > 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.
> > 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).

There's a related question, which I just realised wasn't actually
explicit - does it make sense to add an architecture to testing at this
stage of the process which we don't think is releasable?  My memory of
previous discussions is that the general answer was "no", although this
possibly depends on how one views the purpose of the testing suite.

> > 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?

Kibi mentioned wanting to look at the state of the Qt multi-arch
transition on s390x, but otherwise I don't think it looks too bad.  26
uninstallables in testing is a little higher than I remembered, but
hopefully they're (mostly) easily fixable.  I didn't immediately spot a
trend amongst the packages involved, but did only have a quick look.



Reply to: