Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-10-04 Thread Philipp Kern
On 03.10.2018 18:01, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> For s390x I can say that the port was driven without any commercial >> interest on both Aurelien's and my side > The question is though: Is there quantifiable amount of users that is > running Debian on such big iron instead of one of the Lin

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-10-03 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Hi Philipp! On 10/3/18 4:29 PM, Philipp Kern wrote: > Please excuse my ignorance, but which architecture do we still have with > 2 GiB address space? The main point of removing s390 was that this was > unsustainable. The 32-bit MIPS architectures have this limitation which causes various build is

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-10-03 Thread Philipp Kern
On 29.09.2018 00:30, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 9/28/18 11:26 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 14:16 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >>> So, it's not always a purely technical decision whether a port >>> remains a release architecture. It's also often highly po

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-29 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Sat, 2018-09-29 at 17:05 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 9/29/18 8:48 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 14:16 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > [...] > > > Furthermore, several of the ports are in very healthy condition and > > > even surpass some release

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-29 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 9/29/18 8:48 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 14:16 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > [...] >> Furthermore, several of the ports are in very healthy condition and >> even surpass some release architectures. The powerpc and ppc64 ports, >> for example, build more packages

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-28 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 14:16 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: [...] > Furthermore, several of the ports are in very healthy condition and > even surpass some release architectures. The powerpc and ppc64 ports, > for example, build more packages than any of the mips* ports. I would be very ha

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-28 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 9/28/18 11:26 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 14:16 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> So, it's not always a purely technical decision whether a port >> remains a release architecture. It's also often highly political and >> somehow also influenced by commercial entiti

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-28 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 14:16 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > So, it's not always a purely technical decision whether a port > remains a release architecture. It's also often highly political and > somehow also influenced by commercial entities. Please don't make implications like that unl

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-28 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Hello! I just saw this mail this morning by accident while browsing the archives, I am not subscribed to debian-devel. > The ftpmaster team would like to clarify which Debian ports should and/or would like to continue to be part of Debian unstable and experimental. I'm not sure what context you

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-04 Thread Aurelien Jarno
Hi, With my debian-ports hat on, let me answer the parts related to that. First of all as a reminder, debian-ports was originally just there to help bootstrapping an architecture and prove it meets the ftpmasters criteria to become an official architecture. It has been used that way for example f

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-02 Thread Samuel Thibault
Svante Signell, le lun. 03 sept. 2018 01:18:20 +0200, a ecrit: > On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 01:07 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > > So has the debian patch been submitted in #900240 upstream by you or > > > Petter > > > Reinholdtsen yet? I don't believe so! > > > > I don't think so either, it'd

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-02 Thread Svante Signell
On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 01:07 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > So has the debian patch been submitted in #900240 upstream by you or Petter > > Reinholdtsen yet? I don't believe so! > > I don't think so either, it'd be marked forwarded. That doesn't mean you > can't help with it. Regardless who

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-02 Thread Samuel Thibault
Svante Signell, le lun. 03 sept. 2018 01:06:11 +0200, a ecrit: > On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 00:19 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Felix Geyer wrote: > > > I suggest that instead you respond to questions on bugs you opened. > > > I'm not interested in maintaining patches for things that clearly > > > b

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-02 Thread Svante Signell
On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 00:19 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > I'm sorry Samuel, I asked both you and James Clarke, Cc:ed, for help on this > > issue and you both said it was not possible to NMU cmake, even if you are > > both > > DD's. > > For my part, I was not talking about that patch, but ab

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-02 Thread Samuel Thibault
Svante Signell, le dim. 02 sept. 2018 23:39:08 +0200, a ecrit: > On Sun, 2018-09-02 at 19:46 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Svante Signell, le dim. 02 sept. 2018 19:45:19 +0200, a ecrit: > > > On Sun, 2018-09-02 at 15:21 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The statistics and

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-02 Thread Svante Signell
On Sun, 2018-09-02 at 19:46 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le dim. 02 sept. 2018 19:45:19 +0200, a ecrit: > > On Sun, 2018-09-02 at 15:21 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > > > > > > The statistics and graphs available on the debian-ports page[1] may > > > > provide some objec

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-02 Thread Samuel Thibault
Svante Signell, le dim. 02 sept. 2018 19:45:19 +0200, a ecrit: > On Sun, 2018-09-02 at 15:21 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > > > The statistics and graphs available on the debian-ports page[1] may > > > provide some objective statistics or reflection on the actual > > > suitability of your

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-02 Thread Svante Signell
On Sun, 2018-09-02 at 15:21 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > 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/sta

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-09-02 Thread Samuel Thibault
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 d

Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-08-27 Thread Luke W Faraone
(resending with corrected address for debian-bsd) Dear ports maintainer, The ftpmaster team would like to clarify which Debian ports should and/or would like to continue to be part of Debian unstable and experimental. As outlined on the Debian Archive Criteria page[0], the key points to consider

Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

2018-08-27 Thread Luke W Faraone
Dear ports maintainer, The ftpmaster team would like to clarify which Debian ports should and/or would like to continue to be part of Debian unstable and experimental. As outlined on the Debian Archive Criteria page[0], the key points to consider are whether the architecture has been part of a st