Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check

[Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>]

On 12/02/2014 20:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
> As I see it, there are two concrete problems with the (number of)
> supported packages. First, the number of packages actually built on
> kFreeBSD is just shy of 90%, whereas most other release architectures
> are at 96%[1].  Here kFreeBSD has increased in the past quarter from
> ~89.5% to "almost, but not quite 90%".

The release architecture criteria [1] says the target is 98% but
hardware-specific packages are excluded. Does this apply to kernel
ports by simply replacing "hardware-specific" with "kernel-specific"?

[1] https://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_policy.html

> Secondly, there are cases like GDM, where a single unsupported package
> have rather "long reaching" consequences.  In the concrete example,
> GNOME (via gnome-core) strictly depends on gdm3, meaning that if gdm3
> goes, (more or less) all of gnome goes with it[2].  That in turn means
> that task-gnome-desktop cannot be installed on kFreeBSD (I presume this
> will at least affect d-i).
>   Here we need you to assess what can you reasonably support.  Once we
> know that we can look at the consequences and how to deal with them.
> 
> 
> By the way, when you present your set of supported packages, please
> consider highlighting where you would like the "default" package set to
> be different from current release architectures.  E.g. with the TC's
> decision on init systems, Linux will be using systemd as default init
> system[3].  I presume kFreeBSD will go with a different init system.

Thanks. We'll discuss this among ourselves and present a proposal.

-- 
Robert Millan