Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
On 2013-10-06 16:25, Sven Luther wrote:
> Hi Niels,
>
Hey,
(Dropping -devel and -ports in exchange for -powerpc; sounded like you
weren't subscribed to -powerpc, so direct CC for you as well)
> I don't know upto what point you are familiar with my history and its link to the powerpc
> port, but it pains me to see that the powerpc port is left with so few porters, and that it
> may mean the port being dropped. I also have not really followed the mailing lists since
> a long time, and don't know who is actually managing the powerpc port, but giving the (1) and
> 0.5 remark, i guess there is not a full porter.
>
I am not familiar with your history, so I cannot comment on that part.
Based on the feedback I got so far we indeed (and still) only got one
DD backing powerpc and my interpretation of that response is that Roger
did not consider himself a "main/full" porter. So, I think the powerpc
port would do well with more DDs backing it.
> So given that, and provided debian may not see a problem again in me becoming active, i may
> be interested in becoming active again as powerpc maintainer. Not sure what category you
> can include me in though, and what the formalities would be should i become active (and welcome)
> in debian again.
>
Assuming you can work with the current powerpc porter(s), I believe
there should be no issue adding you as a non-DD porter for now. For
now, I have not added you to my list, but feel free to let me know if I
should ammend it.
> Also, i am not really sure of the amount of time i will be able to devote to debian, and i will
> have to take my powerpc hardware out of the storage area i put it in, but i guess it should be enough
> to do powerpc porting work, provided other folk help me out. That said, i am also interested in the
> powerpcspe port, as i am (slowly) working on a open-hardware Freescale P1010 based board.
>
Time and devotion is probably the essence of this roll call. Above
everything else, we really want to know whether there are still active
people (or, rather, an active team) behind the ports, who can solve
problems in a timely fashion.
> Anyway, please let me know if there is anything i can do.
>
> Friendly,
>
> Sven Luther
>
> [...]
Ensuring there is an active team behind the powerpc is a must; having
more active DDs behind it is currently a must[1]. I am sure there are
other possible ways to help the ppc port, but those two are the only
ones I am currently aware of.
~Niels
[1] As mentioned in the mail you replied to, we are considering to
revise the requirements for the number of DDs. But for now, the old
requirement of 5 DDs still stand.
Reply to: