On 02/04/11 10:32, Witold Baryluk wrote:
On 04-01 21:16, Matt Turner wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Mark Hymers<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
As mentioned in the recent ftp-team meeting minutes, we're planning to
remove alpha and hppa from unstable.
Might want to hold off on that for alpha. There's been a flurry of
emails in the last week working to revive it.
I agree, we should discuss it.
Yes, I would also like to ask can we have a "stay of execution" for a
short period of time (maybe a couple of months or three) to give the new
"porting team" that is currently forming a chance to prove that we can
return the Alpha Arch back to releasable state.
I realise that a "grace period" has already been given but it seems that
the discovery that Alpha was not amongst the Squeeze release has both
surprised some people and spurred them into action.
At the time Alpha was removed from the testing distribution it did have
serious issues and was criticised for a lack of upstream support. The
upstream support has now largely been addressed. The kernel is now up
to date with other architectures and is being supported. X windows is
now working on the more modern Alphas (i.e. those with the BWX CPU
extension), and the fixes to get KMS working on Alpha will soon make
their way into the kernel. There is now upstream support addressing
issues in the compiler toolchain and glibc.
It is quite a blow that when we have just got a team together to work on
Debian Alpha that we learn that Alpha is to be completely removed from
the buildds.
If we could get a short stay of execution, with an agreed upon list of
things that need to be addressed to prove our mettle, say within three
months time, or else Alpha shall be removed from the buildds, we would
be mightily obliged!
Cheers
Michael.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
