Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> (19/05/2012):
> One question which has come up quite a bit recently is whether we should
> remove armhf and s390x from one or both of {broken,fucked}arches. Doing
> so doesn't necessarily imply making them release architectures,
> particularly while we're not treating arch-specific bugs on them as RC.Just for the records: in the current state of affairs, the autohinter is keen on “forgetting” to migrate binNMUs for those archs, which can generate more installability than if it was a bit cleverer. > arch | count | equiv-arch | equiv-count | difference > ===================================================== > armhf | 380 | armel | 484 | -104 > s390x | 755 | s390 | 256 | 499 > > and for testing: > > arch | count | equiv-arch | equiv-count | difference > ===================================================== > armhf | 12 | armel | 0 | 12 > s390x | 28 | s390 | 1 | 27 And as mentioned on IRC, I'll try and see what can be done to reduce those diffs. > AIUI, the larger s390x difference currently is due to needing a new > qt4-x11 build, which is waiting for the qt4 multiarch updates to finish > (which are in turn waiting for mysql?). > > Based on the above, I don't think we should wait any longer to at least > remove armhf from brokenarches; we could also remove s390x if we assume > that the issues there will sort themselves out quickly enough that they > won't start becoming blockers. > > Thoughts? Baring issues I can't anticipate because I know very little about this stuff as of yet: the sooner the better. Mraw, KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
