Re: ports/powerpc/index.wml: squeeze release is not mentioned
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Le 20/05/2011 17:28, Holger Wansing a écrit :
> David Prévot <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Le 20/05/2011 16:33, Holger Wansing a écrit :
>>> [CC'ing email@example.com, please keep me in CC,
>>> as I'm not subscribed to that list]
>>>> In this list the squeeze release is not listed.
>>> Do you want me to commit such patch?
>>> --- ports_powerpc_index-orig.wml 2011-05-20 22:25:28.000000000 +0200
>>> +++ ports_powerpc_index-workingcopy.wml 2011-05-20 22:27:01.000000000 +0200
>>> @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@
>>> Debian PowerPC port was first officially released with Debian GNU/Linux 2.2
>>> (`potato'). Support for PowerPC is continued in the releases 3.1 (`sarge'),
>>> - 4.0 (`etch') and 5.0 (`lenny').
>>> + 4.0 (`etch'), 5.0 (`lenny') and 6.0 (`squeeze').
>>> Please see the <a href="$(HOME)/releases/stable/powerpc/release-notes/">
>>> release notes</a> and <a href="$(HOME)/releases/stable/powerpc/">\
>>> installation manual</a> for more information.
>> Why not instead use something that won't need further update on next
>> releases, as:
>> Debian PowerPC port was first officially released with Debian
>> GNU/Linux 2.2 (`potato').
>> Support for PowerPC is continued since and is currently
>> available with Debian GNU/Linux <6.0 (`squeeze')>.
>> where <6.0 (`squeeze')> would be automatically updated?
> That's what I wrote in my initial mail, too,
Indeed, so we already agree on this point ;-).
> but the proposal above
> does not include the same information as the old text. In the old
> text 3.0 is missing. So powerpc wasn't a release architecture for
> 3.0 ?
It was, according to the following links, so the new wording proposal
fixes this long standing issue too.
> And: if you change to above proposal, and powerpc is dropped for 7.0,
> you have to change the text again (ok, it's probably most unlikely that
> powerpc gets dropped).
Well, we'll have to update the page and state that the support was
dropped in version X.0 (and I believe it would need to be stated
explicitly enough, so a rewording would be needed anyway). Until X.0 is
out, we could rest (which is not the case now).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----