On 20/04/15 at 00:22 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Hi, > > As the jessie release approaches, the ftp-team have been reviewing the > status of the architectures in unstable. > > Neither sparc nor hurd-i386 are going to release with jessie and we are > therefore looking at their future in unstable. > > > SPARC > ===== > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=745938 > > Given the current lack of proper kernel support and the lack of upstream > toolchain support, we intend to remove sparc *at the latest*, three > months after the release of jessie. This could be avoided if there is a > team of Debian Developers putting in a serious effort to revive this > port, thus the 3 months timeframe. If this happens, please keep track in > an easy reviewable way, so we can recheck it before actual removal (for > example list of closed bugs, uploads, upstream patch work, ...). > > It is noted that the sparc64 port is likely to be a more suitable basis > for any future SPARC work but that nobody has approached us about > inclusion. > > hurd-i386 > ========= > Well before wheezy was released, we talked with the HURD porters, and > they agreed to re-check their archive status just after the wheezy > release[1]. The plan was to move the HURD port off ftp-master if it > wasn't included as a technology preview or full release arch. HURD > wasn't a part of Wheezy, and it's highly unlikely it will be in Jessie. > > We'll be removing HURD, as discussed, from the ftp-master archive after > the Jessie release. > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2013/05/msg00018.html Hi, I fully understand that those architectures cause an additional load on ftpmasters (and various other teams). But I've always been very proud that Debian was able to accomodate a wide variety of architectures and kernels (even if I've not done much to achieve that). I find it sad that we will soon have to say "oh, and there are also people maintaining an unofficial Hurd port outside Debian". I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and other teams. I'm not entirely clear on the status of debian-ports.org, and of what the current downsides of using debian-ports are. Maybe it's just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as Debian's official way to host second-class architectures. Maybe there's more to it. What are the current downsides of moving hurd-i386 and sparc to debian-ports? Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature