Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check
On 2014-02-14 00:23, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 12/02/14 20:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> 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%".
>
> I'm a little puzzled you mention this as a problem because...
>
>> 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.
>
> if we decide some packages can't be supported any more, I assume some
> would become linux-any and thus the number of built packages would fall?
> So these seem like conflicting goals.
>
Hi,
Indeed, they are conflicting goals. But I do not see why that is so
surprising. There are plenty of things in software development (and
especially in release management) that involves a trade-off on
conflicting goals.
Ideally, I want all those graphs to show 99.999...%[1], but in the
short term I cannot have that. Right now, we are trying to look at this
from a pragmatic angle.
If we get a better kFreeBSD by focusing and dropping some packages
(possibly including a desktop or/and some specific server tasks), then
so be it - as long as there is ambition, motivation and a realistic plan
from your side, then I am willing to consider it.
> I fully agree with the latter point though, I see value in having a plan
> for what to support, and probably free some packages of an obligation to
> either build, be installable or functional kfreebsd if it no longer
> makes sense.
>
> Regards,
>
Those packages will probably end up being linux-any in the short term
(and some of them, possibly, in the long term as well). In said short
term, they will need to be cleaned up (decrufted etc), so they no longer
hold up migration to testing for Jessie.
For Jessie + 1, I would like for the gap to close between Linux and
kFreeBSD architectures. But lets take that part later.
~Niels
[1] Which is obviously a different way of writing 100% :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
Okay, maybe not 100%, but then aim for 95%.
Reply to: