Bug#947706: www.debian.org: Updating Debian portages web page

Aurelien Jarno <[email protected]> Thu, 2 Jan 2020 15:06:38 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.www
Message-ID	<20200102140638.GA219250__34571.9796883472$1577974164$gmane$org@aurel32.net>

On 2019-12-31 07:56, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 12:26:08PM +0100, Alban Vidal wrote:
> > Package: www.debian.org
> >...
> > -----
> > 
> > Bellow the list of officials portages:
> > - amd64
> > - arm64
> > - armel
> > - armhf
> > - i386
> > - mipsel
> > - mips64el
> > - ppc64el
> > - s390x
> >...
> > [1] https://www.debian.org/ports/
> >...
> 
> Removing mips from the list of official ports is wrong.
> 
> As of Debian 10 mips is an official release architecture that will
> continue to be supported in this release.
> 
> For our users the most relevant information is what is supported in the 
> current stable release, not whatever changes might happen in future 
> releases.
> 
> Release architectures for Debian 11 are not yet decided, further changes 
> might happen and in theory it is even possible that someone starts 
> working on keeping mips as release architecture.
> 
> It has happened before that a port was discontinued but later restarted
> by other people.
> 
> > -----
> > 
> > Bellow the list of unofficials portages:
> > - alpha
> > - arm
> > - AVR32
> > - hppa
> > - hurd-i386
> > - ia64
> > - kfreebsd-amd64
> > - kfreebsd-i386
> > - m32r
> > - m68k
> > - mips
> > - netbsd-i386
> > - netbsd-alpha
> > - or1k
> > - powerpc
> > - powerpcspe
> > - riscv64
> > - s390
> > - sparc
> > - sparc64
> > - sh4
> > - x32
> >...
> > [1] https://www.debian.org/ports/
> >...
> 
> This list does not contain all ports that autobuild unstable as of 
> today, and the status of several ports is incorrect.
> The current non-release architectures are the "Hosted Architectures"
> listed at https://www.ports.debian.org/
> 
> "discontinued" and "dead" seem to be different words for the same.
> 
> "in progress" is poor wording for ports that are not aiming at 
> (again) becoming release architectures, the most common term
> I am aware of would be "non-release architecture".
> 
> [email protected] (added to Cc) is the correct contact 
> for discussing the status of ports that are not part of Debian 10.

The status of each port should be discussed directly with the
corresponding porters. On the debian-ports side, we basically host the
ports provided they are more or less maintained, useful to at least
some people and that there are no legal issue. We do not have other
criteria like the release team.

Aurelien, with his debian-ports hat.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
[email protected]                 http://www.aurel32.net

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)