On 14/06/16 09:06, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +0000, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Philipp Kern: >>> On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >>>> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, >>>> s390x >>>> - *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security. >>>> - s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns. >>> What is the current DSA concern about s390x? >> The concern listed as: "rely on sponsors for hardware (mild concern)" >> >> As I recall the argument went something along the lines of: >> >> "Debian cannot replace the hardware; if any of the machines dies, we >> need a sponsor to replace it. If all of them dies and we cannot get >> sponsored replacements, we cannot support the architecture any longer" >> >> (My wording) > > Yeah, but that's unfortunately one of the universal truths of this port. > I mean in theory sometimes they turn up on eBay and people try to make > them work[1]. > > It also seems true for other ports where we commonly relied on sponsors > to hand us replacements. But maybe it's only ppc64el these days, maybe > there are useful builds available for the others (including arm64 and > mips) on the market now.
AFAIK we rely on sponsors for all ports. The difference is that if we eventually have to buy things ourselves, we can get mips*, arm* or x86 buildds (for example), but we can't reasonably get a s390x one. But that's not something we can change, so as long as there no other concerns, this shouldn't be a blocker. Emilio
