Re: Debian Archive architecture removals
On 20/04/15 at 00:22 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Hi, As the jessie release approaches, the ftp-team have been reviewing the status of the architectures in unstable. Neither sparc nor hurd-i386 are going to release with jessie and we are therefore looking at their future in unstable. SPARC = https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=745938 Given the current lack of proper kernel support and the lack of upstream toolchain support, we intend to remove sparc *at the latest*, three months after the release of jessie. This could be avoided if there is a team of Debian Developers putting in a serious effort to revive this port, thus the 3 months timeframe. If this happens, please keep track in an easy reviewable way, so we can recheck it before actual removal (for example list of closed bugs, uploads, upstream patch work, ...). It is noted that the sparc64 port is likely to be a more suitable basis for any future SPARC work but that nobody has approached us about inclusion. hurd-i386 = Well before wheezy was released, we talked with the HURD porters, and they agreed to re-check their archive status just after the wheezy release[1]. The plan was to move the HURD port off ftp-master if it wasn't included as a technology preview or full release arch. HURD wasn't a part of Wheezy, and it's highly unlikely it will be in Jessie. We'll be removing HURD, as discussed, from the ftp-master archive after the Jessie release. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2013/05/msg00018.html Hi, I fully understand that those architectures cause an additional load on ftpmasters (and various other teams). But I've always been very proud that Debian was able to accomodate a wide variety of architectures and kernels (even if I've not done much to achieve that). I find it sad that we will soon have to say oh, and there are also people maintaining an unofficial Hurd port outside Debian. I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and other teams. I'm not entirely clear on the status of debian-ports.org, and of what the current downsides of using debian-ports are. Maybe it's just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as Debian's official way to host second-class architectures. Maybe there's more to it. What are the current downsides of moving hurd-i386 and sparc to debian-ports? Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Archive architecture removals
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org (2015-05-04): I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and other teams. I'm not entirely clear on the status of debian-ports.org, and of what the current downsides of using debian-ports are. Maybe it's just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as Debian's official way to host second-class architectures. Maybe there's more to it. What are the current downsides of moving hurd-i386 and sparc to debian-ports? Last I heard about it, it was understaffed and infra was undersized + needed some changes to make it possible to grow. This was some time ago, so I've added admin@ to make sure we get updated intel on this topic. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Archive architecture removals
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org (2015-05-04): I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and other teams. I'm not entirely clear on the status of debian-ports.org, and of what the current downsides of using debian-ports are. Maybe it's just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as Debian's official way to host second-class architectures. Maybe there's more to it. What are the current downsides of moving hurd-i386 and sparc to debian-ports? Last I heard about it, it was understaffed and infra was undersized + needed some changes to make it possible to grow. This was some time ago, so I've added admin@ to make sure we get updated intel on this topic. zumbi was working on moving debian-ports to debian.org infrastructure and got some of it done (the website for instance). I asked him about it on IRC and got this response: pabs zumbi: this mail looks like it needs a status update re ports.d.o https://lists.debian.org/20150504062822.ga24...@xanadu.blop.info zumbi pabs: we had this: https://titanpad.com/debian-ports zumbi pabs: I was hoping for debcamp/debconf to be able to finish it up zumbi (however I am still unsure about if I'll be able to attend event) pabs zumbi: may I copy that into email or can you? zumbi pabs: feel free to copy it zumbi pabs: it needs someone with wanna-build database experience, some dsa, aurel32 (and maybe some ftp-master) to complete the work -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6FXYe0te=rE-2B0-8OCgdG=tut_et66mkhu6rgnjwc...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Debian Archive architecture removals
On 04/05/15 at 18:04 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org (2015-05-04): I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and other teams. I'm not entirely clear on the status of debian-ports.org, and of what the current downsides of using debian-ports are. Maybe it's just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as Debian's official way to host second-class architectures. Maybe there's more to it. What are the current downsides of moving hurd-i386 and sparc to debian-ports? Last I heard about it, it was understaffed and infra was undersized + needed some changes to make it possible to grow. This was some time ago, so I've added admin@ to make sure we get updated intel on this topic. zumbi was working on moving debian-ports to debian.org infrastructure and got some of it done (the website for instance). I asked him about it on IRC and got this response: pabs zumbi: this mail looks like it needs a status update re ports.d.o https://lists.debian.org/20150504062822.ga24...@xanadu.blop.info zumbi pabs: we had this: https://titanpad.com/debian-ports zumbi pabs: I was hoping for debcamp/debconf to be able to finish it up zumbi (however I am still unsure about if I'll be able to attend event) pabs zumbi: may I copy that into email or can you? zumbi pabs: feel free to copy it zumbi pabs: it needs someone with wanna-build database experience, some dsa, aurel32 (and maybe some ftp-master) to complete the work That pad says: As a result of current state, d-ports cannot accept more ports. If that's still true, it would make sense to postpone dropping hurd and sparc until this is fixed... Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150504104741.ga18...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Debian Archive architecture removals
On 13931 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: That pad says: As a result of current state, d-ports cannot accept more ports. If that's still true, it would make sense to postpone dropping hurd and sparc until this is fixed... Hurd is already on d-p, so hurd actually has double infrastructure use. And the last release they did came from d-p resources, which is another argument not to continue on ftp-master with them. Sparc has sparc64 there, so that would be an addition to it. -- bye, Joerg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87pp6gs4pa@delenn.ganneff.de
Re: Debian Archive architecture removals
Joerg Jaspert, le Mon 04 May 2015 18:11:29 +0200, a écrit : On 13931 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: That pad says: As a result of current state, d-ports cannot accept more ports. If that's still true, it would make sense to postpone dropping hurd and sparc until this is fixed... Hurd is already on d-p, so hurd actually has double infrastructure use. Not really: we only have a dozen packages on d-p, the rest is not on d-p. And the last release they did came from d-p resources, No, I got the packages from master, and used snapshot.d.o as a way to have a frozen image of it. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150504161609.gk3...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr
