On 05-Aug-22 11:48, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Andreas Jochens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 11:36]: > > I understand that the amd64 port has to be recompiled for the > > final inclusion into the official archive because the current amd64 > > packages have not been built by DDs. But currently more than 10% of > > the unmodified source packages from 'unstable' FTBFS. It will likely > > take many months, if not years, for amd64 to get anywhere near to the > > requested 98% mark again. > > Come one. Packages which are known as buggy (= have FTBFS RC-bugs) are > of course counted as, well, buggy. Though of course our hope is that the > number of such packages goes down, both by removals and bug fixing. > > > > If not, what does the 98% rule really mean? > > "Your port needs to be able to and does build the vast majority of the > archive before we consider it fitting for release." That there are more
This is of course a fully reasonable requirement. I hope that the final policy will use these words instead of the "98% rule" which will likely cause misunderstandings. Moreover, I think that the release team should have the power to decide if this general requirement is fulfilled. This seems to be better than specifying some arbitrary and debatable figure which will most probably lead to useless discussions and flames about numbers. Regards Andreas Jochens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
