On 28/07/14 22:35, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > 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 virtually no packages outdated, very few architecture specific packages 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.
I've been told on #debian-release that that can't be done because britney can't "bootstrap" an architecture in testing. Not yet. Cheers, 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/53d6cc71.1030...@debian.org
