On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 04:39:22AM +0000, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > Matthew Palmer <mpalmer <at> debian.org> writes: > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:15:58AM +0000, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > > undisputed: essentially all users are on i386 clearly dominating all > > > other > > > arches, with a fraction of users in maybe two, three, four other arches > > > --- > > > and comparitively nobody in the other fringe arches we keep around for no > > > good reason. And I still believe it delays our releases. As you say, > > > there > > > > You can believe in the tooth fairy, too, but it doesn't make it true. Since > > you're trying to convince others to join your tooth fairy worshipping > > religion, it might be useful to provide some evidence to back your belief. > > Sorry, you just scored against your own team.
Why, by asking for evidence that multiple architectures delays releases? You have a really oddball scoring system. > > I believe we haven't seen any evidence that all our architectures has > > delayed any release. DI was a potential sticking point, but it's already > > sorted due to the hard work by the relevant porters while we're still > > waiting for other technical issues to work themselves out. > > It delays our releases in the sense that it affects our resources: > - available maintainer and developer time, What's to say that someone who spends time on a minority architecture would spend it on Debian proper if that architecture wasn't in Debian? I would say that the inverse is the case: developers with an interest in minority architecture come to Debian and help out with non-arch-specific things as well as their pet arch, while if Debian didn't support that arch they'd probably go elsewhere. > - cpu cycles (witness Wouter's request to compile big packages rarely), More computers wastes CPU cycles? > - network bandwith (witness the discussion on mirror efficiency), Do you have any actual evidence that lower bandwidth would benefit Debian in any material way? > - mirrror capacity (witness the sad state of amd64), So you're saying that we need to reduce our architecture count to increase our architecture count? > - security response time (more builds to do) Security autobuilders are on their way. You could make the argument that if we only had a couple of architectures we wouldn't really need security autobuilders, but I think that automating everything that can be automated is a Good Thing. > and that it > - increases the load on infrastructure (t-p-u, security) WTF? t-p-u would be needed if we had one arch. > - scarce resource such as release managers, ftp admins, ... RMs and ftpmasters aren't arch-specific, apart from the odd occasion when an ftpmaster needs to remove out-of-date binaries for unbuilt architectures. Note, however, that two ftpmasters are presidios of their own niche architecture. If we dropped them, they'd probably go off and do their own (non-Debian) thing. > As you say so cogently: "it might be useful to provide some evidence to back > your belief". > > Consider the ball in your court, and please prove with tangible numbers You'll need to go and collect the ball from behind you where it landed after you missed it before you send it back to me. - Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
