On 25/07/14 01:14, peter green wrote: > When you are added to testing you will be added as a "broken and fucked" > (release team's terminology not mine) architecture. To get out of this state > you > will need to get and keep your port in a healthy state in testing. That will > mean fixing (in some cases through NMUs) issues that are blocking migration of > packages you need (whether or not those issues are related to your > architecture) > and fixing any architecture specific build failures as quickly as possible > (since when you are in the "broken and fucked" state your builds will not be > blockers for testing migration so a new upload that breaks your architecture > will be able to migrate). > > Once your port reaches a healty state in testing (most packages present, > virtually no packages outdated, very few architecture specific packages > uninstallable), the release team will remove the "broken and fucked" status > and > you will become a release architecture. You then need to maintain your port > in a > healthy condition until release time.
I don't know how it has been done in the past, but it seems to me like it would be easier to add any new architecture as a normal "first class" architecture. Given that if we add a new architecture to testing is because it's already keeping up and in a reasonable state, then it shouldn't block packages, so that shouldn't be a problem. That sounds like less pain than adding it as a broken architecture and having to unbreak it afterwards. But as I've said, I don't know how it's been done in the past so maybe I'm missing something. Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53d6b42f.4060...@debian.org
