Fwd: Archive architecture qualification

[Aurelien Jarno]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 02:40:25PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 11:45:17AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 07:17:24PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > 
> > > Just in case you didn't see it ...
> > 
> > I have seen it, but I won't be able to be there (at least partly),
> > because I will be in the train...
> > 
> > We should have at least one of us following (and participating in) the
> > discussion. Who would be there?
> 
> I will, but I'm not sure what to say or how to defend our position in that
> discussion.
> 
> Do you think there's something in particular we should say in it?
> 
If I am right, this discussion is to define the criteria that have to
be met to be included in the archive. So we have to make sure that all
the criteria that are choosen are ok for us.

It seems that the criterias will be a subset of the release architecture
criteria. As we already most of them, this should not be a problem:

* Available
i386 machines are available, no problem

* Porting machine
Yes, io.debian.net. I even have a new mainboard + processor to upgrade
it at home. But a lot of official debian machines are slower than
io.debian.net

* Port Maintainers
Should be ok, we have more than 5 names to put their.

* Users
We do not have 50 users, at least we do not have a list of 50 users. We
need to do lobbying on this point to make sure the port is accepted,
even if we do not have a such a list.

* Installer
We do have an installer, even if it is a bit hacked. This criterion
should be ok, but we need to make sure this is the case.

* Upstream Support
Ok

* Archive Coverage
76,8 % at the time of writing. This is not a problem, because we have
the most important archive coverage after amd64. If we are refused
because of that, this will be the same for all of the others ports.

* Up to date
76,6 % at the time of writing. Our build daemons are fast enough so the
two numbers are very close. No problem there.

* No more than 3 buildds
We have 2 buildds, that are building packages 15% of the time. There is
no problem there.

* Buildd redundancy
We have 2 buildds, but the two are the same location. I still have to 
find a place for the second one. Anyway this is not a problem, currently
only powerpc meets this requirement.

* buildds: runs 24x7
No problem there, GNU/kFreeBSD is really stable :)

* RM concerns
* DSA concerns
* Security concerns
We could do nothing here, except make sure the criteria are fine for us.

-- 
  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno	            | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian developer           | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   aurel32 at debian.org         | aurelien at aurel32.net
   `-    people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net