Le Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 08:16:03PM +0000, Ben Hutchings a écrit : > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 08:25:31PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > * Steve McIntyre <st...@einval.com>, 2012-02-28, 16:20: > > >I've just done lots of QA work tracking down build failures while > > >bootstrapping a new architecture, typically in pet packages that > > >have gone largely unmaintained after a small number of uploads. > > > > Out of curiosity, why are pet packages important for bootstraping a > > new architecture? > > All build failures have to be investigated and it will take non-zero > time to discover that such a package is not very important. > > Also, release qualification for architectures > <http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_policy.html> requires building > the vast majority of the archive (suggested borderline is 98%).
One think that strikes me when I see people with iPhones is that they have a lot of fun with applications which purpose is to make people laugh and share a good moment. I am not sure that this computer would have had the same success without its application store. In Debian, we treat all packages equally and having fun places a high burden on our infrastructure. It does not fit well applications that are enjoyable but disposable. iPhone 5 will not be delayed if a couple of gag programs can not upgraded. Couldn't we keep a place in our namespace and our mirrors for such programs, in a section where best effort is the rule ? I do understand it is not that easy; security comes to mind immediately. But this is exactly where these application stores have their value: they go through a filter that is operated by the maker of the operating system, which the users trust. Have a nice day, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120229000732.gg27...@falafel.plessy.net