On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:39:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, http://release.debian.org/squeeze/arch_qualify.html lists kfreebsd-*
> and m68k as not release candidates, and arm, ia64, mips and powerpc as
> "at risk" in addition to alpha and hppa. Only m68k is listed as having
> RM concerns. Is that page actually reflecting the release team's view
> of architecture status at all, and could it be made to correspond a bit
> more closely either way?
So arm's dropped off that page, kfreebsd-* have been bumped to "TBD",
and alpha, hppa are still accompanied by ia64, powerpc, mips and s390 as
being "at risk". There's lots of fields with just a "?" -- apparently
there's no info on whether the RMs have concerns about everything but
amd64, m68k, s390 and sparc... Anyway, some suggestions:
m68k isn't "available" anymore, afaics -- it's not in unstable;
doesn't seem any point having it in the list afaics
amd64 has d-i support, surely? it did for lenny, despite lenny's
page...
querying port maintainers for amd64 and i386 seems like a waste of
time. is there really any concern that no one will be
around to support them?
the <foo>-concerns should probably have two possible states: "no",
or "yes" with one or more links to mailing list threads
stating those concerns
having the "Porting machine" answer be "yes" with a link to
the appropriate http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi?host=foo
page would be as informative and help make the table
take up less space
using blue to distinguish waived requirements might be helpful,
with something like Users: "45 (w)" to save space. Having
(w) link to a list post explaining the waiver would
probably be helpful for people who'd like to understand
why armel gets a waiver for multiple buildds but hppa
doesn't, eg.
both s390 and alpha seem to be keeping up with the build
up-to-dateness requirements, based on the buildd.d.o
graphs. probably worth linking the row headings for those
percentages to the buildd.d.o graphs, really
redoing the qualification page every release seems pointless; it's
a wiki page so it's not automatically up to date or
correct, and still needs to be validated by the release
team; and arch maintainers don't seem to particularly be
excited about doing it for exiting architectures... after
initial qualification, why not have the status page be
the canonical summary, linking to list posts for further
information as necessary?
Cheers,
aj
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
