On Thursday 17 March 2005 23:44, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:22:04PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > * Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]: > > >> Andreas Barth wrote: > > >> >If that happens for a too long period, we might consider such an > > >> >architecture to be too slow to keep up, and will eventually discuss > > >> >about kicking it out of the architectures we wait for testing > > >> > migration at all, or even kicking it out of testing at all. Not > > >> > waiting for such an arch has happened and might happen again. > > >> > > >> I think it makes sense to shorten the list of arches we wait upon for > > >> testing migration, but I fail to see the usefulness of removing an > > >> arch from testing. > > > > > > If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due > > > to e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other > > > words, if an arch is too long ignored for testing, we should remove it, > > > as we can't release it in any case.) > > > > Not if each arch has it's own source tracking. And you already need > > that for snapshot fixes. > > > > Non release archs should be released by the porters alone (no burden > > to RMs) with a minimum of arch specific versions or patches. There > > should be a strong encouragement to remove software instead of > > patching it when it comes close to the actual release so when the port > > does release (after the main release) it is based on stable source for > > Why would a port release after the main release ? Why, if debian doesn't > care about the non-release archs, would the porters even bother to > follow the release arch sources and not just release whenever they > like ? They don't gain anything by following the main release. > > > everything but last minute flaws in essential packages. Maintaining > > those patches in case of security updates or for the point releases > > again should lie with the porters. > > > > > > The reason why I favour this is that I have in mind that some archs > > will be too slow, they won't be able to keep up every day. But given > > an extra month they can compile the backlog or kick out out-of-sync > > software and release seperately with a nearly identical source > > tree. The remaining source changes can (and basically must for > > legal reasons) be contained on the binary CD/DVD set and in a branch > > of the scc.d.o tree. > > > > Take for example m68k. It will always be at risk of lagging a few days > > behind because some packages do build a few days. It is always > > out-of-sync longer than the other archs but it is not getting worse, > > it is just a step behind. That is totaly different than arm or s390 > > taking a deep dive getting some 300+ package backlog and having > > packages stuck for a month. > > > > If an arch has enough developers on it to keep stuff building, and > > that means supplying patches to unstable fast and early enough to get > > them into testing and ultimately stable I see no reason why the arch > > shouldn't release. Make some rule to limit out-of-sync, say no more > > than 1% sources differences to stable for the release. > > > > Any problems with that? > > Yes. It doesn't make sense. Either debian releases with all archs, or > every arch releases on its own. The latter is favoured by the current > proposal and will diminish debian's value. The former is the way to go. > Scalability problems need to be solved by improving infrastructure or > procedures as appropriate.
Porters who have worked on getting an arch to REGUALR status are in a much better position (demonstrated commitment, technical aptness and experiencewise) to solve those problems than random-joe-developer. Always remember that the main reason that it is easier for a porters team to release within the (current) Debian framework than outside is that _others_ do work for them. Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir Ãber ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15