The following is a list of questions (and, hopefully, answers) regarding the "Vancouver Prospectus", the proposal for Debian release management intended to take effect for etch (sarge+1), and assembled by the Debian release managers and archive administrators at a meeting in Vancouver, Canada in early March 2005.
- Why is the permitted number of buildds for an architecture restricted to 2 or 3?
- How is it that none of the four architectures to be released with etch (i386, powerpc, ia64, amd64) have the bare minimum 2 buildds, and yet all are still considered releasable? (N+1 buildds are required; presumably N is 1 rather than 0, since most developers will not upload a binary package for each of the four architectures every time they release a new source package.)
- How will it be determined if a newly proposed architecture has a large enough user base to consist of 10% of all mirror downloads before that new architecture is actually added to the mirrors?
- Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given independent veto power over the inclusion of an architecture.
- Does the entire team have to exercise this veto for it to be effective, or can one member of any team exercise this power effectively?
- It seems to be the entire team that would need to veto as it's a concern that there won't be enough man hours to do the work. Iirc somone said it was a "common sence" no one to support it = veto (ddaniels)
- Is the availability of an able and willing Debian Developer to join one of these teams for the express purpose of caring for a given architecture expected to mitigate concerns that would otherwise lead to a veto?
- How often can/should these bodies be petitioned for a reconsideration of their veto in light of underlying changes in circumstance?
- How will the exercise of a veto be communicated to the Project?
- The guidelines for eligibility as a released or mirrored architecture, and for inclusion in SCC, could be initially met, but later fail. For example, an architecture could fall below the 98% up-to-date mark. Does this spell automatic expulsion from the slate of releasable architectures? Similarly, for how long are the petititions for inclusion in SCC (5 developers and 50 users) assumed to remain valid?
What problems does the VancouverProspectus aim to solve? Mirror network space, d-i releases (wasn't a blocker before), security updates (mostly a kernel problem?), RC-bug fix "hand-holding" on the buildd's... Guesses:
- buildd system scaling (almost fixed?)
- setting up and maintaining buildd's (offers for help have been made)
- Archive Space (Alternative fixes include Ubuntu Universe model, better compression...)
- Time removing old versions (i.e. stale binaries) (Alternatives include automated scc for packages, giving recognized porters the ability to remove stale binaries)
- Space for out of date source (Alternatives include automated scc for packages)
- Mirror Bandwidth (Alternatives include rsync, making arch's selectable...)
- d-i support (wasn't a blocker before)
- Security updates
- "hand-holding" buildd's (mostly was a problem for kernels and shouldn't be for sarge)
- Setting up and maintaining buildd's
- Waiting for slow arch's to build (just be a lucky side effect)
- RC-bug fix "hand-holding" on buildd's (Alternatives include leaving it to the package maintainers, asking for help...)
- How will SCC releases be made? CD image only, scc.d.o only, not at all, added when ready to the mirror network?
- Will tear-1 releases (i.e. etch) block uploads for scc RC fixes? If changes needed for scc's are blocked then, will the Stable Release Manager accept package changes which are just intended to support a scc or other architecture?
Does VancouverProspectus provide measures to other DebianRelease problems, such as cuasi-exponential growth of packages? (["EGallego"])