On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 08:53:44PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > Hi, > > > On 2024-08-01 07:55:15 +0200, Hector Oron wrote: > > > Should Debian drop armel from the upcoming Debian release? > > > > Was there a conclusion to the discussion on d-arm@l.d.o? What is the > > opinion of the two porters that we currently have listed for armel > > (added to CC)? > > fakeroot, a notable key part of the infrastructure required to build > packages, FTBFS on armel and armhf since March, due to t64 changes > on these architectures. > > I think this is indicative of the developer interest in armel and > armhf and the resulting available resources in Debian at this time.
I think this is more indicative of fakeroot being in the not uncommon situation that this is a key part of the Debian infrastructure only one person in Debian knows well. I am surprised that there were uploads by the maintainer (who is also upstream) that ignored this bug. I am also surprised that the people from Canonical who were doing the time_t transition ignored this bug. It is laudable that you finally fixed it, but I'd guess you'd agree that this required fakeroot knowledge and not arm knowledge. And you cannot single out armel and armhf for this in general, if the level of porter activity you expect would be a prerequisite in trixie then not a single of the bookworm architectures would qualify. We do have a porter problem, but hppa, riscv64 and loong64 are the only potential architectures for trixie if continuous and proactive activity by several porters is a hard requirement. > Chris cu Adrian BTW: It looks bogus that amd64 is exempted from the porter requirement based on Our toolchain maintainers are happy to support amd64 as-is. Who is responsible for fixing amd64 specific issues in non-toolchain key parts of the infrastructure?
