On 16/06/16 02:12, Hector Oron wrote: > I have put up the classical wiki page for Stretch at: > https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/Stretch > > Please review and comment if required.
That page is now outdated wrt mips concerns (see below). Do we need to duplicate the information that we already have on r.d.o/stretch/arch_qualify.html ? >> - s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns. > > I understand s390x and ppc64el DSA concerns have been clarified > in-list and those concerns are due to nature of the architecture. Sure, that's fine. > For the ARM ports, which have also been clarified, let me re-confirm: > * arm64 port has remote power and remote console available, plus > geo-redundancy, hardware is available and there is more hardware > coming in the pipeline. I am unsure why it is listed with multiple DSA > concerns, that surprises me (with DSA and ARM porter hats). The port > currently has 4 machines up, one down waiting to be replaced, in total > 5 and more coming. OK. I have removed the DSA concerns for arm64 from arch_qualify due to this. > * armhf/armel ports share hardware, we currently have 6 machines up > with remote power and remote console (of course that being development > boards is not so nice as server remote management goodies). Some > machines require a button press but local admins are great and always > happy to help. > > If none steps up explaining what are DSA concerns on the ARM > architectures, please update status requalification page dropping > those concerns. [DSA hat on] AIUI armhf/armel needing local admins should still be a concern, even if mild. Ideally that wouldn't be necessary. I have updated arch_qualify to reflect that. > I see armel has one porter listed, if more are needed, please add > myself and Riku Voipio (armel buildd maints). [ARM hat on] > I see arm64/armhf are covered porterwise however there should be more > porters available if needed. I have added you two as armel porters. >> * mips64el (NEW) >> - No DSA buildd (RT blocker) > > As far as I can see mips64el is using shared builds with mipsel port > hardware, those machines are DSA. We now got more hardware. This is no longer a concern. >> - Rebuild after import not complete (RT Blocker) > > Is there a list of packages that should be rebuilt? There's just one package missing, which is being worked on. See Aurelien's mail. >> - Not yet in testing (due to the above). > > Please let's work on getting it in testing ASAP I think the above > blockers can be worked out quite reasonably. Once db5.3 is rebuilt, we can enable mips64el in testing. > While working out ArchitectureQualification/Stretch wiki page I > believe everything is mostly fine for release, however I got a > personal concern on powerpc architecture. Is it well maintained? Does > it have porters? Does it have users? Does it still make sense to carry > along? Not sure about this one... I don't think anybody has stepped up as a porter. > Another concern (DSA) which I have added and explained in the wiki > page is the lack of georedundancy for the 'mips' port. Verbatim copy > from wiki follows: > "mips: It has 5 buildds in the same datacenter, current hardware are > routers or development boards which makes it very difficult to ship to > other places. The host providing redundancy (lucatelli) at UBC-ECE > must be decomissioned ASAP, leaving the port in a situation of not > geographic redundancy. However advanced plans exists to deploy mips > hardware in other data centers RSN." > > I'll keep you posted whenever there is progress on that area. I do not > believe it should be a blocker for release, but we must ensure geo > redundancy first. That's sorted out now. Cheers, Emilio
