On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 03:30:41AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > Dear HPPA porters, dear HPPA port users, > > the Release Team is currently wondering if it makes sense to release with > HPPA as a regular stable architecture with squeeze. It might be that > it is not up to the standards of a regular Debian release. We seem to > chase random segmentation faults, causing multiple give-backs to eventually > yield a built package.
I realize this doesn't address the larger concerns you mention, but.. I've found that a workstation I recently acquired (a c3700) seems to reliably build packages that reliably fail on our existing buildds (subversion, for one). I assume CPU architecture differences allow this box to be immune to the issues causing these builds to fail. Due to the formfactor, I don't think HP would be able to host it and my upstream bandwidth at home is too limited. If the project wanted to make this machine a buildd and find hosting for it, I'd be willing to maintain the buildd. > Especially this is also causing concerns from a security building point of > view, as autobuilding has to work for this. > > If it's not entirely up to our standards, would a separate suite, like it > has been done in the past for etch-m68k, help having some sort of release that > can be updated independently from the main stable release? Such a suite could > also be useful to land larger changes than normally allowed for stable and > maybe to continue the hppa port from a stable foundation for some time. > > I think we do agree that it will be included into stable for the last time. > > Kind regards, > Philipp Kern -- dann frazier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
