Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
> On 09/30/2016 06:08 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> I strongly /suspect/ that "no porters" for powerpc will imply the
>> removal of powerpc for Stretch. It may or may not be moved to ports
>> (assuming someone is willing to support it there).
>
> So, I take this as a "no" for the offer from me and Christoph Biedel to take
> over the powerpc port for Stretch?
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
My statement above was made based on the assumption stated in the first
line of Mathieu's mail, which was "Assume there are no powerpc porters
for Stretch".
As for "porter qualification"
=============================
We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the
roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for
Jessie. However, we ended up with a completely broken and unbootable
sparc kernel.
That was an embarrassment to the Debian stability and quality
reputation that I never - ever - want to repeat.
(For avoidance of doubt: I want to ensure that release architectures
"just work(tm)" and I have no desire to blame that volunteer).
If I am to support powerpc as a realease architecture for Stretch, I
need to know that there are *active* porters behind it committed to
keeping it in the working. People who would definitely catch such
issues long before the release. People who file bugs / submit patches etc.
If you need inspiration: Have a look at the [automatic testing of
ppc64el images]. Or the [arm64 machines on ci.debian.net] with
comparable results to amd64. This is the sort of thing that inspires
confidence in the ports for me and I think we should have vastly more of.
Thanks,
~Niels
[automatic testing of ppc64el images]:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2016/06/msg00002.html
[arm64 machines on ci.debian.net]:
https://ci.debian.net/status/
Reply to: