* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I hope you can agree that we need to say that "almost all" packages that > > should be build are build. And I consider 97.5% to be a reasonable > > level. Also, if we exclude too much, we might start to ask the question > > why we should do a stable release for an arch that builds only a very > > minor part of the archive. But the "excluding architecture-specific > > packages" gives of course some possibilities which packages count and > > which not. > > I think we should distinguish between what's really necessary to have a > useable release and what is nice to have. It's obviously nice to compile > almost everything for all archs. But if upstream is too broken for this > to be possible, it might make more sense to leave the broken bits out > then to delay everything.
This is not a terrible thought really, imv. There are packages which it
doesn't make sense to have on a given architecture. This would reduce
the buildd load for that architecture and may reduce the load on the
security team to support those architectures, etc. For the initial
package set I'd think it'd be up to the porters but after that there
could be wishlist bugs against an *architecture* for packages to be
added/removed which users need or which don't work so hot.
It's an idea that has some merit and should at least be considered.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
