On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 02:46:39AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > But when X fails to install into testing it really does hurt the > release; many packages in Debian depend on X. When X, Perl (and thus > debconf) , etc failed to go into testing, it did cause a significant > delay.
And glibc2.2, and gcc, and alsa, gtk, and gnome, and libqt2.2, and
whatever other things I haven't noticed yet.
> Yes, there are many maintainer problems, but there are also
> port/release problems.
For example glibc and gcc had some problems getting ported to arm for a
fair while; X had problems (and still does) working on m68k (in particular
xserver-xfree86); alsa needs some bugs fixed; libqt2.2 wasn't building
on alpha without a newer version of gcc.
I'm not sure it's really reasonable to try to blame either the maintainer
or the porter for these sorts of problems. The reason for the hold up
is generally the upstream source breaking on one of the architectures,
if you're really desperate for someone to blame. I'm not sure it's really
reasonable to try to expect either the maintainer or the porter to try to
fix it alone.
> The m68k buildd was using a broken mirror
> apparently from some time in Decemeber until February 8 and even
> though questions were asked on debian-devel and debian-68k, the
> response took a long time.
Current stats (as far as testing is concerned) are something like:
47 ( 1%) i386
60 ( 1%) alpha
229 ( 5%) sparc
298 ( 7%) arm
422 (10%) powerpc
423 (10%) m68k
Percentages as a total of the 4345 source packages currently in unstable;
which isn't particularly meaningful, but should be indicative.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
pgpSObJifdHsK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
