On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:27:25AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote: > > > This one time, at band camp, Ingo Juergensmann said: > > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > > > > > > > > > Moreover, the criterias given in your mail are just so oriented > > > > > towards/against some architectures, that it's a bad joke (I was going > > > > > to write "disgusting", really). > > > > > > > > It's a total change of direction: from "as long as there are people who > > > > care, we will release those arch" to "no matter if there are people who > > > > care, we just release mainstream archs". :-( > > > > > > No, I thought the proposal stated quite clearly, if there are users and > > > there are porters, a given arch is able to be included. All that means > > > is that those interested will actually have to do some of the work to > > > support things like security and the kernel. I know many of you already > > > > That is a joke. Do you really think that the porters don't care about the > > kernel ? I would really like that you don't drag the kernel-team in these > > petty claims, as i don't think that this is a problem kernel-wise. For > > example the first to go for the recent 2.6.11 kernels that are in the work > > where powerpc and sparc, and now s390 : > > See my other posts, and further down in this one. I am not interested > in offending anyone, and I am not actively involved in any of these > areas. I am speaking from watching from the sidelines: > watching while Woody was delayed for months > watching while Sarge is delayed for . . . (months? a year? more?) > watching while security fixes are delayed for weeks or months > > These are all unacceptable.
There is no real evidence that the ports are the ones holding down the release, and this is something that was told to us by most DPL candidates less than a week ago too. > That does not mean that I am saying either of a) drop the less frequently > used arches, or b) the porters aren't doing thir jobs. I don't believe > either of these statements to be true. If you are part of the good > effort to port Debian to other architectures than the mainstream ones, > I thank you. > > However, the people doing the heavy lifting of coordinating security > releases, kernel management, and release management have spoken, and > they've said they're overloaded. That being the case, a change in the They may be overloaded, but didn't accept help in the past. > distribution of labor is needed, and it likely means that the porters > have to pick up the slack. If you are already doing so, I don't think > you have anything to worry about. The arches I see as having problems in > the future are those that have unresponsive buildd admins and slow to act Like arm for example, and who is the arm buildd admin ? > port teams (or only a single person, who could easily be overwhelmed). > These arches probably shouldn't be released as stable, so no real > loss there. There is a huge difference between a reasonable answer to these problems, and the we will drop all arches except the main 3 (and maybe pick up amd64). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
