Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>
>> To be fair, bug #248043 was filed some time ago.
>>
>> It seems to me, after reading that bug, that getting the port into sid
>> has been stalled on questions about the treatment of biarch [actually,
>> probably more from the lack of an adequate statement of the nature of
>> IA32 support than anything else].
>
> Thanks for the pointer. The bug was posted in March, 2004, when the
> project was "rapidly maturing". For i386-hurd, we got it in sid
> *right away*. My advice (which I admit is pointless now) is to get
> new ports into sid *right away*, as soon as you have a real
> autobuilder or even just a dozen base packages.
>
> That's way too late to ask for adding it to sid.
We did ask for it before and where told to get an autouilder and a
substantial amount of packages build as well as work on D-I support.
Question asked by John Goerzen:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/02/msg00606.html
and the reply by Anthony Towns:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/02/msg00615.html
Requests for more info on mirror seperation (so we could help speeding
that up) were left unanswered:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/02/msg00672.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/02/msg00677.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/02/msg00703.html
The port was ready for sid even back then (going by that mail) and
ready to be a release _candidate_ for over two month.
The reason why we asked so late (with 3000 packages build already) is
that once the pure64 base was setup and tested sufficiently and an
autobuilder started it just rushed through and build those 3000
packages within days.
>>From reading the bug, in seems that Martin Schulze expressed a
> concern, it was addressed, and discussion proceeded apace until a
> month ago.
>
> That doesn't seem to me like it warrants a GR. Among other things,
> the technical committee should be the first line of discussion, and I
> would rather have the technical committee take this up and make a
> decision. It seems that all the relevant issues are technical, and
> that's the group we have to settle such things.
I believe the issue Matrin Schulze raised was out of missing knowledge
(understandably since it wasn't explained in the request) and has been
explained satisfactory.
> It doesn't belong on debian-vote.
>
> Thomas
The only thing that can belong on vote (after being put in a revised
GR) is the inclusion in sid [if it has to come to that]. That would be
a GR to overturn the ftp-master decision (by inaction) to not include
amd64.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: