On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > Yes, 'm68k' and 'future' in one sentence. Amazing, isn't it? Surely we > > > must be joking? > > Hey, I haven't seen any activity wrt m68k archive (re)qualificiation. > You haven't been looking good enough, then. Put it in the wiki along with everyone else where it's obvious. > > Given m68k's dropped back below the 95% cutoff (and has spent about > > 1/3rd of the last 90 days beneath it) and has a number of red squares > > still on the release arch qualification page it seems certain at this > > point that you won't get a "release arch" exception any time soon. > That's being worked on. That's fine, but it's irrelevant -- you need to be able to demonstrate you can keep up consistently for at least a three month period; at the moment you seem to be at least four months away from that, given how long it seems to take m68k to catch back up. That's fine, and there's no reason why m68k can't demonstrate that Debian can effectively maintain a "toy" or "embedded" or whathaveyou port that's *not* intended to release. But it does mean you've got no chance of a release requalification anytime soon, which means you need to be proactive about getting an archive qualification done. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature