On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:44:27PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > > In my reading of the proposal, not-tier-1 arches will receive appropriate > space and resources off the main mirror network if they can demonstrate > viability (working buildd, basic unix functionality, compiled 50%, 5 > developers, 50 users) and DFSG-ness (freely usable, unmodified Debian > source). As far as I can see all current official Debian arches fulfill these > criteria. For the in-development arches like k*bsd with a handful of > developers and a extremly small userbase other solutions are already used.
<hat mode="on" type="Nienna porter">
Amd64 is the only "development" arch I know of using Alioth, and, well,
folks have already said that's proven to be an issue for various reasons.
The only existing copy of the Nienna archive is behind a dynamic cable
hookup, which works great so long as it's just a couple of people hacking
on it but won't scale well should we manage to get the base system clean
(the majority of NetBSD port issues are 'core' things like a different
concept of passwd/shadow management that require design and often code to
integrate with a Debian-policy-compliant system).
Once it's possible to actually run debootstrap / pbuilder on the system,
I expect the number of packages will jump upwards pretty sharply. I'd
love to have a better answer for archiving by that time. I don't think
that would need to be (or even, frankly, SHOULD be) mirrored except by
someone's personal desire to do so; the gap from "devel" arch to SCC is
narrow enough, once you have enough users that it would be a noticeable
load, that it shouldn't take long to get promoted that far.
</hat>
Anyway. The other comment I have, for the Release team and ftpmaster team,
is: thanks. Having the concrete information on what is expected of an arch
before it can reach certain stages is extremely useful, in that it means I
won't have to wonder when I should be pestering anyone.
(BTW, does this mean the wishlist ftp.d.o bug for arch creation should be
closed for the moment, since I don't anticipate it reaching even SCC status
for some while, yet?)
--
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
