On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 16:51 +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach David Schmitt <david@schmitt.edv-bus.at> [2005.03.16.1923 +0100]: > > * relaxing "arch-specific" to also be able to exclude KDE/GNOME > > from mips (until someone commits to properly support it for > > whatever reason he has) > > Why do we make a package foo's entry to testing dependent on whether > foo has been compiled for all arches, including all dependencies? > Why can't we have separate sid->testing propagation for each arch, > then freeze testing as before, get rid of RC bugs, and release? > > Sure, the package set will differ across architectures, but they do > already... > > I see the main advantage of this approach to put a little pressure > onto the maintainers of less popular arches, who will have an > interest to make things work for their arch, This it what I see as the attitude of *some* people: "It works on x86, x86-64 & ppc. Who cares about lame old and/or arches like m68k, arm, hppa & sparc?" Thus, I foresee 1. even more disparity between the popular arches and the tiny ones. 2. difficulty with bugs. How do you close a bug, if it doesn't work on some arches? The open bug count would go even higher. > and thus might try to > persuade others *on an individual basis* to fix their packages for > arches which are currently not supported cleanly. > > Am I making sense? Yes, but I disagree. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. "You are wrong in thinking that I dislike wholehearted pacifism, though I do think it mistaken. What I object to is the circumspect kind of pacifism which denounces one kind of violence while endorsing or avoiding mention of another." George Orwell, 1944, in correspondence with a British pacifist
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part