Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 22:24]: Doing a count yourself you can get 10% divergence from the buildd.d.o stats depending what you count exactly. So before any line should be drawn someone should define a correct counting

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:59:52AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Andreas Jochens writes: Wouter Verhelst wrote: - must have successfully compiled 98% of the archive's source (excluding arch-specific packages) Andreas Jochens writes: It is not possible to build 98% of the unmodified source

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

* Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 00:18]: [John Hasler] Make it 98% of the packages buildable on the accepted port with the highest build percentage. That's not fair either, unless you require all packages to be autobuilt (which is a thread we don't need to duplicate now).

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

Hi, * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 03:32]: On the other hand I feel that a port with even 80% of all packages available can be very very usefull. Even a port without any X can be usefull if that lack of software is intentional and not just inability to build something.

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

Le Mar 23 Août 2005 03:37, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit : In the end the decision to apply this benchmark will be manual and arbitrary; it's not like a precise way to measure it really matters. As stated elsewhere, at present, nobody except i386 comes even close to 98%. I see an increase

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 03:32]: Maybe the 98% rule was just a look at http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png or http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-week-big.png and then picking a number so that the archs

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Human error, or poluted chroot/compilation env is more likely to happen on the developper machine than in a buildd. Maybe this has already been discussed once, but I think that binary uploaded packages (except the

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

On Tuesday 23 August 2005 06.44, Joe Smith wrote: By the way, i386 does not make the cut according to the vancouver prospect due to the number of buildds required. So are we left with 0 archs in etch? :) That will certainly speed up the release. LOL. Release NOW! Release now, damnit! I

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Human error, or poluted chroot/compilation env is more likely to happen on the developper machine than in a buildd. Maybe this has already been Also for each upload we have 10 archs

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:59:52AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Andreas Jochens writes: Wouter Verhelst wrote: - must have successfully compiled 98% of the archive's source (excluding arch-specific packages) Andreas Jochens writes: It is not

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 22:24]: Doing a count yourself you can get 10% divergence from the buildd.d.o stats depending what you count exactly. So before any line should be drawn someone should define a correct counting method and generate at least a month worth of

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:13:35AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: On 05-Aug-21 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote: - must have successfully compiled 98% of the archive's source (excluding arch-specific packages) It is not possible to build 98% of the unmodified source packages from the

Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

On 05-Aug-21 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote: - must have successfully compiled 98% of the archive's source (excluding arch-specific packages) It is not possible to build 98% of the unmodified source packages from the 'unstable' distribution. This is true for any port including i386. For the

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

* Andreas Jochens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 11:36]: I understand that the amd64 port has to be recompiled for the final inclusion into the official archive because the current amd64 packages have not been built by DDs. But currently more than 10% of the unmodified source packages from

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

On 05-Aug-22 11:48, Andreas Barth wrote: * Andreas Jochens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 11:36]: I understand that the amd64 port has to be recompiled for the final inclusion into the official archive because the current amd64 packages have not been built by DDs. But currently more than 10%

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

* Andreas Jochens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 12:56]: On 05-Aug-22 11:48, Andreas Barth wrote: * Andreas Jochens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 11:36]: I understand that the amd64 port has to be recompiled for the final inclusion into the official archive because the current amd64

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

Andreas Jochens writes: Wouter Verhelst wrote: - must have successfully compiled 98% of the archive's source (excluding arch-specific packages) Andreas Jochens writes: It is not possible to build 98% of the unmodified source packages from the 'unstable' distribution. This is true for any

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

On Monday 22 August 2005 12.17, Andreas Jochens wrote: On 05-Aug-22 11:48, Andreas Barth wrote: * Andreas Jochens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 11:36]: If not, what does the 98% rule really mean? Your port needs to be able to and does build the vast majority of the archive before we

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

[John Hasler] Make it 98% of the packages buildable on the accepted port with the highest build percentage. That's not fair either, unless you require all packages to be autobuilt (which is a thread we don't need to duplicate now). There have always been a significant number of packages which

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

Andreas Jochens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 05-Aug-21 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote: - must have successfully compiled 98% of the archive's source (excluding arch-specific packages) It is not possible to build 98% of the unmodified source packages from the 'unstable' distribution. This

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [John Hasler] Make it 98% of the packages buildable on the accepted port with the highest build percentage. That's not fair either, unless you require all packages to be autobuilt (which is a thread we don't need to duplicate now). There have

Re: Will the amd64 port be rejected because of the 98% rule?

By the way, i386 does not make the cut according to the vancouver prospect due to the number of buildds required. So are we left with 0 archs in etch? :) That will certainly speed up the release. LOL. Release NOW! Release now, damnit! I think it will be our fastest and smoothest release ever.