Hello, Luke W Faraone, le lun. 27 août 2018 00:33:58 -0700, a ecrit: > So, in the first instance, would you like to continue being part of > unstable/experimental?
Well, I can simply point at what we said last time (IIRC) the question was raised, here are the importants point we see in being on debian instead of debian-ports: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/05/msg00070.html Samuel Thibault wrote for the debian-hurd team: > * Appearing on packages' and maintainers' PTS > pages like http://buildd.debian.org/bash and > https://buildd.debian.org/sthiba...@debian.org This has been changed since then: debian-ports architectures show up there. > * Getting binNMUs from d-release transitions I believe this is also now done for debian-ports architectures? This really saves a lot of duplicate work for porters. > * Appearing on http://release.debian.org/transitions/ and > https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/unstable_main/index.html > We're fine with d-release not looking at the hurd column. But *we* > however do look at it, and would be sad to completely lose that. It > could be in a completely separate page or column, that would not pose > problem. I don't know if we have this for debian-ports? > * Being considered as "second-class citizen" As said at the time, this is rather already the case. Luke W Faraone, le lun. 27 août 2018 00:33:58 -0700, a ecrit: > As outlined on the Debian Archive Criteria page[0], the key points to > consider are whether the architecture has been part of a stable release, > whether it is *likely* to be part of a stable release, as well as > whether it currently has a sensible number of active maintainers. Considering how even quite a few Linux architectures ports are not making it, I don't think we could say it likely that hurd-i386 be part of a stable release. > Whilst you may be happy to continue the work of maintaining the port > regardless, don't forget that excess or otherwise unnecessary > architectures involve a shared maintenance burden as well as incurring > non-trivial requirements on mirror/Debian resources. Concerning mirroring, it is indeed useless to mirror hurd-i386 worldwide. Considering maintenance burden, I'm a bit afraid of here simply moving the load from the ftpmaster team to the debian-ports ftpmaster team. I don't know the details, so can't say, I'm just Cc-ing both teams. > The statistics and graphs available on the debian-ports page[1] may > provide some objective statistics or reflection on the actual > suitability of your architecture's continued inclusion. > [1]: https://buildd.debian.org/stats/ Such statistics are really difficult to get any real conclusion from. Sometimes 10% packages are missing just for one tricky nonLinux-specific issue in one package. Samuel