Le Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 04:45:10PM +0100, Daniel Pocock a écrit : > > It could be argued that the "cost" of these other architectures is not a > one-sided equation - their presence contributes in some way to the > overall quality of the software that people include in Debian. So the > net cost may be lower than people really think, but of course that > doesn't take away the fact that it is a cost that has to be paid to keep > these ports there.
Hello Daniel, I think that the mere ‘presence’ as a release architecture sould not be counted on the positive side of the equation, because one can definitely perform mass screening for bugs by rebuilding the archive on non-release architectureps. This is similar in spirit to the Mayhem project that reported 4,801 bugs this summer (http://forallsecure.com/mayhem.html). Having Debian as an intermediate between mass-screeners and upstream authors is a big work overhead for us, or at least for me. The more we screen, the more it means that I need to concentrate on the old software at the expense of the new software, and become an human email proxy instead of a software packager. I am somehow glad to provide this service from time to time, but I also think that it is the duty of the people interested in mass-screens to innovate and find ways to reach upstream directly. Of course, Debian can help with projects such as the ‘new PTS‘ or http://upstream-metadata.debian.net/. By the way, thanks to the release team for the very nice summary that started this thread, for the auto-removals, and everything else. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131130012105.ga19...@falafel.plessy.net
