On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 09:53 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 06:08:16PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On 19.05.2012 19:04, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > >I'm not sure we've ever released with an architecture which was in > > >either broken or fucked, but hopefully someone will correct me if I'm > > >mistaken on that. > > > > Anyone? :-) > > > > Opinions as to whether it makes sense to release an architecture in > > either of those states would also be welcome. > > > > I do not think it is sensible to release an architecture that is in > broken/fucked. That's what something like debian ports is for. > > In order to release hurd, even as a tech preview, we need hurd in > testing and users actually testing it. This is a problem at this stage > because:
An almost up-to-date web page about GNU/Hurd is available at: http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/Hurd > * there isn't a functional D-I port yet It work perfectly well as far as I know. There are still bugs to be handled by the DMs, for example grub2: #670069, #634799, #670186, #670189 > * it doesn't support debian style networking (ifupdown etc) ifupdown is supported, see wnpp bug #672212 > * it doesn't support any meaningful available new hardware (USB, SATA) SATA support is in the works. > * its archive coverage is far lower than required What is required, currently the percentage is 77%. How large was it when kFreeBSD was released as a tech preview in Squeeze. Take a look at the bug page, to find out how the percentage could increase: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-hurd@lists.debian.org;tag=hurd; 39 important bugs with patches 14 normal bug with patches 7 forwarded important and normal bugs 4 bugs pending uploads etc The introduction of GNU/Hurd in testing is not only in the hands of the porters. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1338369264.8802.329.ca...@s1499.it.kth.se