Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:26:07AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 11:20]:
>> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:24AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > > > - the port must demonstrate that they have at least 50 users
>>
>> > > How do you demonstrate that? Via popularity-contest?
>>
>> > But then, popularity-contest installation per default was dropped for
>> > debian-installer rc3, so ...
>>
>> We don't say "it needs 50 entries in popularity-contest", but just: 50
>> users. How this is demonstrated, may be different. Enough traffic on the
>> porter list might also be enough - or enough bug reports coming from
>> that arch. Or whatever. I don't expect that to be the blocking critieria
>> for any arch.
>
> I believe that kfreebsd-gnu matches all the mentioned requirements [1] except
> this one. There are quite many bug reports for this system (hundreds) but
> most of them come from me ;). If you could be more specific, that'd be much
> appreciated.
>
> [1] Of course, we don't have the DD signatures yet, but there are more than 5
> DDs working on this so there's no problem collecting them.
On that note I think amd64 fails the 5 DDs crtiteria. When we asked
for inclusion we had 1 DD working on amd64 and several NMs I think. I
think when we hit the 98% mark there were 2 DDs involved.
Another criterium amd64 fails is that packages must be DD build and
signed. That criterium seems realy silly. If the archive is not in
Debian but managed outside why should packages be exclusively DD build
and signed. Also when an arch is included only uploads of DD signed
debs are accepted so the criterium solves itself once an arch is
added.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
