On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:23:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:21:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 10:47:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > The sh and hurd-i386 ports don't currently meet the SCC requirements, > > > > > as > > > > > neither has a running autobuilder or is keeping up with new packages. > > > > > It is impossible for any port under development to meet the SCC > > > > requirements. We need a place for such ports. Where will it be? > > > > On the contrary, the amd64 port does, and is currently maintained > > > completely outside official debian.org infrastructure. > > > The amd64 port did not always. Ports under development take time; the > > amb64 port is at a late state in its development. I don't understand > > why autobuilding is important to SCC; maybe if you could explain that > > I would understand. > > The point is that the ftpmasters don't want to play host to various > ports that *aren't* yet matured to the point of usability, where "being > able to run a buildd" is regarded as a key element of usability in the > port bootstrapping process. The amd64 team have certainly shown that > it's possible to get to that point without being distributed from the > main debian.org mirror network.
I don't really understand that point though, since the plan is to drop mirror support for all minor arches, what does it cost to have a 3 level archive support : 1) tier 1 arches, fully mirrored and released. 2) tier 2 arches, mostly those that we are dropping, maybe mirrored from scc.debian.org in a secondary mirror network. (why not ftp.debian.org/scc though ?). 3) tier 3 arches, or in development arches, available on ftp.debian.org/in-devel or something. I don't see how having the in-devel arches be hosted on alioth instead on the official debian ftp server would cause a problem. Also, i don't understand why scc.debian.org is better than ftp.debian.org/scc, really, ideally we could have /debian, /debian-scc, and /debian-devel or something such. Is it really a physical problem fro ftp-master to held all these roles ? What is it exactly that ftp-masters want to drop all these arches for ? Mirrors could then chose to go with 1) only (most of them will), or also mirror 2) and/or 3). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
