John Paul Adrian Glaubitz: > On 09/30/2016 06:08 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: >> I strongly /suspect/ that "no porters" for powerpc will imply the >> removal of powerpc for Stretch. It may or may not be moved to ports >> (assuming someone is willing to support it there). > > So, I take this as a "no" for the offer from me and Christoph Biedel to take > over the powerpc port for Stretch? > > [...] > > Thanks, > Adrian >
My statement above was made based on the assumption stated in the first line of Mathieu's mail, which was "Assume there are no powerpc porters for Stretch". As for "porter qualification" ============================= We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for Jessie. However, we ended up with a completely broken and unbootable sparc kernel. That was an embarrassment to the Debian stability and quality reputation that I never - ever - want to repeat. (For avoidance of doubt: I want to ensure that release architectures "just work(tm)" and I have no desire to blame that volunteer). If I am to support powerpc as a realease architecture for Stretch, I need to know that there are *active* porters behind it committed to keeping it in the working. People who would definitely catch such issues long before the release. People who file bugs / submit patches etc. If you need inspiration: Have a look at the [automatic testing of ppc64el images]. Or the [arm64 machines on ci.debian.net] with comparable results to amd64. This is the sort of thing that inspires confidence in the ports for me and I think we should have vastly more of. Thanks, ~Niels [automatic testing of ppc64el images]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2016/06/msg00002.html [arm64 machines on ci.debian.net]: https://ci.debian.net/status/
