[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Opinion on splitting official architecture (tiers)



Hi,

Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> wrote on 08/09/2022 at 13:00:11+0200:

> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 9C5C99EB05BD750A created at 2022-09-08T13:00:11+0200 using RSA]]
> Hi all,
>
> On 01-09-2022 14:18, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> Of course there are details to figure out and agree on, but before
>> diving into those I'd like to hear if you are open to support the
>> idea (hopefully even in time for bookworm) or if there are already
>> deep concerns (that would take long to resolve if at all).
>
> Although I wasn't expecting a big wave of enthousiasme from this
> audience, I was expecting at least some reply with concerns. Given
> that there hasn't been any reply, I don't know how you feel about
> this.
>
> To be able to proceed before the bookworm freeze, I'm going to assume
> that in general this split (that shouldn't really impact DSA and 
> ftp-master work [1]) is acceptable by you if there's no reply in two
> weeks. I'll work out more details after that.
>
> Paul
>
> [1] I predict it may even reduce the amount of architecture specific
> removal requests in unstable, where the porters have a chance to fix 
> broken packages.

Would tier II be exclusively composed of builders that are currently
supported by DSA?

Cheers!
-- 
PEB

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: