* Andreas Jochens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 12:56]: > 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. Well, my current understanding is that there is a number relevant for archive inclusion that is about 50% (and decided by the ftp-masters), and another which is 98% which is for release inclusion and in the end of course decided by the release team. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
