On Tue, March 15, 2005 22:50, Stephen Frost said: > I'm not sure that we've entirely missed the point as much as we like to > think there's a better solution than dropping all but 4 archs.
Here's where things go wrong in this discussion. I think the original proposal was (in retrospect) worded too definitive and too detailed. Many people are falling over the fact that the proposal asserts that only 4 archs remain and most people keep repeating that "we are dropping 8 archs" like that's the key of the proposal . It would have been much better if the proposal was more basic and not as worked out with concrete percentages and archs falling out. Let's reduce it to its essence. The proposal actually is that the Debian project needs to put some demands in place for any architecture to be a part of the release. Now this is not really the case, so if an architecture keeps lagging behind for some reason, it delays everything. We need some minimal quality standards for an arch to be included. Example minimal quality standards: - it should have a large part of the packages built - there should be enough buildds to keep up with security and new uploads within reasonable time. - there should be some minimal team to support this architecture Any arch / porting team that satisfies our demands can be included. I honestly think that we (almost) all agree that putting these kind of demands in place is not too much to ask. What exactly the thresholds should be, that's a point of discussion. Let's first start to see whether we agree that putting these demands on an arch this is neccessary to remain our overall quality. we could then, if we do, start working on drafting up the exact demands and parameters. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]