On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 09:17:02AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > [Speaking for the debian-hurd team] > > Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 04 May 2015 08:28:22 +0200, a écrit : > > Maybe it's just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as > > Debian's official way to host second-class architectures. Maybe > > there's more to it. What are the current downsides of moving hurd-i386 > > and sparc to debian-ports? > > That's perhaps the best question to address. Being on master just for > being mirrored is not useful to such kinds of ports of course. In the > current status of the Debian infrastructure, there are however a lot > more consequences, which we can perhaps work on, so as to avoid making > hurd-i386 and sparc essentially disappear, and perhaps at the same time > to revive some debian-ports archs without overhead for ftp-master, > d-release etc.. Also perhaps more easily consider removing more archs > from master.
I completely agree. And I also agree that moving to debian-ports makes patches harder to get merged, but if debian-ports becomes something more official, it may get slightly easier. > Perhaps we need a political decision here? -- Richard Braun -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150505123552.gb27...@dalaran.sceen.net