sparc meeting requirements for etch
[Replies directed to debian-sparc, public discussion should take place
In order to fulfill the requirements for releasing with etch, Debian
needs more sparc hardware up and running. Since previous offers of
hardware (not just from me) have been ignored or refused, this is not
a matter of hardware availability but of the debian-admin team not
doing anything with the offers.
Again, I am offering my help and hardware to help fix this problem.
If hosting is available within 50 miles of Los Angeles, California,
USA, I am willing to act as local system administrator. (I can supply
and install the machine.) I am willing to act as a buildd
administrator. If desired, I could join the debian-admin team. If
nothing better is available, I could even host a machine on my DSL
line, and give it a static IP. Contact me at my debian.org email
address (same user name) if you want to discuss any of these offers
vore is currently the only active buildd machine, and it is unable to
keep up with the desired 98% durring the middle of the release cycle.
However, it is close and the release team might be willing to accept
two machines of this class as meeting the N+1 buildd requirement.
auric (a faster machine) has been down for a long time with problems
on its raid controler. I suspect that one of the disk drives could be
taken out of the raid array and mounted internally, giving it more
than enough storage to run as a buildd and developer accessable
machine. Alternativly, I could supply an external or internal drive.
kubric is not worth fixing, and should have been removed from the
db.debian.org list of machines years ago.
Ben Collins offered to replace vore and auric with a bigger machine.
However, this would not meet the N+1 requirement.
Sparcblade 1000 systems are available for about $600 now.
Unless the debian-admin team explains what help it needs or fixes the
situation reasonably soon, I'll have to consider this as an silent
exercise of their veto power over an architecture.
Blars Blarson email@example.com
With Microsoft, failure is not an option. It is a standard feature.