Hello, On 05/09/2018 07:03 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > I have never seen yours or Olivers name recently fixing i386 and autopkg test > failures. Should be easily to do for you, it's free, and there's no work > involved.
I would agree with this point; although I rarely have had to fix i386-only issues, they come up now and then. With our Proposed Migration[1] infrastructure, it is extra work to maintain *any* additional architecture. "Free from Debian" isn't necessarily an excuse either. Often times, issues that we need to fix are Ubuntu-specific. With the Debian Release Team starting to embrace autopkgtesting for testing migration, this improves things, but not completely. By that same logic, where's our RISC V port? What about SPARC64? The answer I have consistently gotten (and agree with, for that matter) is that it takes time, money, and infrastructure to maintain these ports. Certainly, if there is good cause to remove a port from the archive without causing many issues, saving developer time is preferred. [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ProposedMigration -- Simon Quigley tsimo...@ubuntu.com tsimonq2 on freenode and OFTC 5C7A BEA2 0F86 3045 9CC8 C8B5 E27F 2CF8 458C 2FA4
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
