Hi, On 08-09-2022 13:59, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
So, maybe my main question is: if we don't consider issues on these semi-supported architectures RC but they have a testing equivalent, why don't the other ports architectures get the same treatment?
Fair question. One big reason is that the split I'm currently proposing is in the realm of my (Release Team) powers. I did/do offer help to get the ports architectures a "testing" and "stable" too, but more needs to happen to get there. One point is DSA maintained buildds (on of the facets in my BoF). The other point is dak (maintained by ftp-master). The split I'm thinking of is only applicable for architectures that are building on DSA maintained buildds and that are running in one (not mini) dak instance. Those two conditions are only applicable for the current release architectures.
It's totally OK to demote current release architectures to ports, but under the current "rules" that means that these architectures need to move to ports (different hosts, different archive) and loose testing/stable. With my proposal, all that happens is that we have different release management rules for fully supported and best effort architectures. This of course needs to be supported by the tools, but britney nearly does so, I need to investigate if there are other changes required, but I expect those to be doable.
Paul
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature