Camm Maguire wrote: > Greetings! > > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> This one time, at band camp, Camm Maguire said: >>>> also not up to a maintainer to decide that an architecture should not be >>>> supported release wise... and if it would be there is a procedure to >>> Not doing that, just saying I'm not going to adjust my packages for an >>> arch which cannot provide the basic facility to package maintainers to >>> support it. Human time is much more valuable than machine time, and >>> having to spend months of the former pursuing the latter is just >>> wrong. >> If you're unwilling to support your packages on multiple platforms, I >> just don't know what to say. Perhaps you want to reconsider your > > I am quite willing if I can count on accessing a machine whenever a > precious Debian development moment opens up. I've been with this > project since the mid nineties, and I can assure you that I have spent > *many* hours getting builds to run on rare platforms, including arm > (take a look at axiom, for example, which required a by hand build of > about one week.) > > I just believe that as a project, we have to realize that supporting > architectures requires more than superhuman effort on the maintainer's > part to find the few evanescent cycles as they may appear in random > locations from time to time.
I already acknowledged it is a different problem that also should be fixed. >> There are plenty of people who can provide access to arm machines to >> you, and there are plenty of emulators availale if you can't be bothered >> to find those people. Deciding that you don't care is really not an >> option. > > Stephen, it is definitely not a question of not caring -- rather the > opposite, the project is weakened if packages are ejected, and > developer time wasted, pursuing the non-existent login. Believe me, > I've tried. In years past, the type of approach you mention worked > quite well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] was quite responsive in helping me outside > the official Debian machine framework to get my packages going on arm. > But now consider this: > > europa, elara -- still locked down from the breakin many months ago > rameau, the old workhorse, gone > smackdown, my old non-Debian standby, inaccessible > agnesi, 'being setup' for many many months. I could once get into > port 2260, but there was no chroot nor development env setup, now > even that is locked down. Asked about this on debian-admin -- no > reply > leisner -- not up (yet?) > > asked on debian-arm for another box, a kind soul responded with an > offer and requesting an ssh key, I replied, no reply, I replied again, > no reply. > > This is just too hard. A large fraction of Debian development time > winds up being simply trying to gain access, at least if situations > like these prove to be the logjams. We know it's suboptimal at the moment, though do you actually want to have your package blocked by the Release Team from entering testing just because one person who promissed you access can't deliver for whatever reason and you don't want to try other possibilities? > You have to ask yourself, if one really cares about Debian, what > should the next step be? Upload the package with ! [ arm ], or let it > sit with an rc bug for months waiting for a machine and risk missing > the release deadline? These are literally the only choices in the > absense of access. Waiting is never a good option... and like I told there is a process only making sure it doesn't build on arm won't let it transition to testing as you'll still have to convince at least the FTP Team and normally also the Release Team and P-a-s maintainers... So the next step should probably be trying to fix the arm issue some other way like trying in an emulator or asking for help... > Now you do mention something I have not tried, and in fact still do > not know if it provides an acceptable alternative -- emulators. Is > the future for maintainers to upload binaries compiled under > emulators? If so, I might be able to deal with this depending on the > quality. What is the policy here? Can one upload arch-specific > binary-only packages built under emulation? One can test packages on emulators, though uploading packages built under emulation is only allowed if the porters of an architecture as a group accept emulated packages which is not true for arm AFAICT... Please be reasonable and reinstate the original severity of the bug and try to get it fixed. Thanks for your cooperation and effort. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
