policy on supported platforms

[Russ Allbery]

Tom Yu <tlyu at MIT.EDU> writes:

> I have created a K5Wiki page documenting our policy on supported
> platforms for MIT Kerberos.  You may find it at:
>
>     http://k5wiki.kerberos.org/wiki/Supported_platforms
>
> We have informally talked about the concept of supported platforms in
> the past; this article attempts to formally set some expectations
> based on historical practice.  Please note the section on "Extent of
> support", which defines the expectations we are establishing.

It's a little ambiguous whether when you say you support Linux, you mean
all Linux architectures or only the ones listed in parentheses
afterwards.  None of the parenthesized platform lists specifically mention
x86_64, which is probably an oversight.

Debian currently auto-builds all packages on the following architectures:

    alpha amd64 arm armel hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390
    sparc

although arm and m68k are on their way out as first-class platforms.  I
expect that few MIT Kerberos features will be sensitive to the
architecture difference given that the same glibc and compilers are used
uniformly.

If there are any such sensitivities, it would be good to iron them out,
not at the level of a first-class supported platform but maybe something a
bit better than "a platform-specific problem reported on an unsupported
platform will get preemptively closed unless accompanied by a very
well-written patch that poses negligible integration cost for us."  But
generally we can provide help from the Debian side on detailed error
messages and debugging, and I doubt this will be much of an issue in
practice.

Other than that, it seems quite sane to me.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>