|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > August 2004 > Re: AMD64 for sarge [<rant> Package: ftpmasters, Severity: serious, ...]
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: AMD64 for sarge [<rant> Package: ftpmasters, Severity: serious, ...]
|
|
| Marcelo E. Magallon 2004-08-08, 5:51 pm |
| Hi,
the e-mail I'm quoting in its entirety below is one month old now and
it seems there hasn't been a public reply. A quick browing of the
remaining emails doesn't releal a resolution in either direction. From
my POV John's questions are valid and important. Martin, care to
address them as DPL?
Marcelo
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 09:26:47AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 10:01:51AM -0400, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
>
> Let's quantify this a bit more calmly :-)
>
> I think there is something odd here. We have numerous other ports that
> have been allowed in prior to having this written policy. I have
> personally been involved with several of them. Not allowing something
> in because there is no written policy is a policy itself, and it seems
> to be arbitrarily enforced.
>
> It is very annoying to have all these closed-door workings of Debian.
> ftpmaster writing policies behind closed doors that impact everyone, for
> instance, and the DPL supporting it is troubling to me. I might even go
> so far as to say that it violates our "We won't hide problems" promise.
> I am at a loss as to why this discussion is not happing on -devel or
> -project and instead in private.
>
> The various informal requirements (which, I should say, sounded quite
> reasonable) that have been communicated to me on these lists before seem
> to have been met by amd64 quite some time ago. Some of them have not
> been met by architectures already in the archive (even *released*
> architectures!). I would hope that the port policy would also force the
> expulsion of any existing port that cannot meet the requirements for a
> new port.
>
> There seems to be a lot of ill will towards amd64 for a reason I cannot
> fathom. Some would be led to believe a conspiracy exists. Because the
> powers that be hold their discussions in private, we cannot prove or
> disprove this, and I'm not alleging it.
>
> But we have a situation here where the amd64 port name was arbitrarily
> changed in dpkg (without any public discussion first); amd64 is more
> mature than even some released architectures; people (the DPL included)
> continue to raise the inability of amd64 to run 32-bit apps as a reason
> not to accept it (even though this has not been a requirement for any
> other 64-bit platform). We have not only working debian-installer but
> also working DFS installer. There are also allusions to unnamed
> "technical concerns" that ftpmasters have but have not communicated to
> us.
>
>
> That is an excellent point. If ftpmasters see a problem with amd64
> meeting the policy they are drafting, tell us about it already and let
> us fix things now rather than making us wait for this vaporous document.
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
|
|
|
|
|