Re: synching non-free packages for sarge
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I would tend to discourage maintainers of non-free packages from seeking
> out additional porter builds at the last minute before release. If the
Oops, sorry. Here's hoping the following release will happen soon
enough that I still remember that. ;-)
> packages don't attract enough interest from users of those ports to be
> maintained on an ongoing basis, it may be better to have outdated
> binaries removed rather than shipping packages that aren't really going
> to be supported.
OK, thanks for the advice; I'll go file a bug on ftp.d.o then.
> At the very least, soliciting builds for the package on archs where it's
> never been built -- and never been missed -- seems like it will just
> make it harder for you to maintain the package. I know most maintainers
> I hear talking about mipsel wish they had the *option* of not supporting
> the architecture. ;)
Heh, yeah, a new architecture to worry about would definitely be a
mixed blessing, though in this case I don't anticipate any portability
issues, just logistical ones. At any rate, I did mean to note that a
mipsel build would be entirely optional as far as I'm concerned, but
accidentally left that point out of the message I ended up sending.
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
Finger email@example.com (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info.