Re: Question for all candidates: handle debian-admin more openly
Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and
> > > > > developers accessible port machines with separate accounts. As an
> > > > > aside, I think there should be more developers-accessible port machines.
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > > >
> > > > For which ports?
Still not answered by Bill.
> > > The three quad-power5 machines that IBM donated to debian for powerpc64 work,
> > > and nobody knew about, and are now sitting in augsbourg (1 used by the
> > > augsbourg university, and two maintained by Bastian Blank, who distribute
> > > accounts on it).
> >
> > Are bruckner and voltaire overloaded or do they lack services the developers
> > need?
>
> The release team has called for a multi-arch implementation to support
> powerpc64 userland over the biarch situation. This calls for a machine capable
> of building *and running* powerpc 64 code, which is not the case of existing
> powerpc 32bit machines.
Such requests and requirements change the situation. However, I have
to admit that I first read about this particular requirement here. I
noticed some babbling about ppc64, sparc64, mips64 and s390x
architectures but nothing that ended up in "will be included in the
archive, hence, requres buildd and development machines".
If this has changed, most probably debian-admin won't deny two
machines for these purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Question to the release and archive people: Is there such a
requirement? Will such architectures indeed be included the archive?
Do we really need machines of the particular 64 bit architectures? If
so for which architectures exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Another question would be if the Debian project should accept every
> > arbitrary donation and increase their machine pool even when there
> > is no use the machine?
>
> We plan to support powerpc64 userland for etch, as thus this is necessary.
Who is "we" in this case? Is it the Debian project?
> Furthermore these machines could be used for other use than just development,
> but then, i guess it is preferable to get a donation from intel than get a
> donation from ibm ?
I don't want to judge between donators and I don't see a reason why
Debian should do so. Instead we should judge between donations and
use the best that we can get.
> > > It was my believe that at least one of them should be maintained under the
> > > umbrella of the DSA team, in order to have it thrusted to be used to upload
> > > packages, but the DSA team refused to have anything to do with them, which i
> > > suppose is understandable since they have no time for it. I proposed to handle
> > > it for them though, or have Bastian do so, and was equally refused.
> >
> > I've once told you that currently (one year ago or so) there is no
> > use for them, since a) voltaire works fine as buildd and bruckner
> > works fine as developer machine.
>
> sure, but we need a powerpc64 autobuilder for etch.
I'm sorry but I don't see powerpc64 mentioned in the list of release
architectures for etch in the status mail from the release team:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/12/msg00013.html
Maybe you could point me to where it is listed?
Regards,
Joey
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Reply to: