On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 06:58:21AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Hey all, > > So, from the other thread, seems like the idea for m68k is: > > (a) keep building unstable as per usual ack > (b) maintain a separate testing-like suite for m68k based on (and > thus probably trailing) the real testing, maintained by m68k > porters, that is installable (using d-i etc) ack > (c) not bother with an etch-equivalent release for m68k I'm not sure about this. I'd sure like to have some form of stable, even if we only do base and security-support base-type packages. I'd hate to have to maintain unstable/testing as the distribution on my buildd's. > (d) try to release with etch+1, possibly with coldfire support ack > The m68k certification pages on the wiki suggest it might be good to > have acks/naks from: > > 1. Wouter Verhelst > 2. Stephen R Marenka :) > 3. Christian T. Steigies > 4. Adam Conrad > 5. Michael Schmitz > > I think Michael Schmitz has said he's willing to do some of the > maintenance work on the testing-like stuff; I'd suggest it'd probably be > ideal to have either two or three people doing it -- you have to already > be a DD though. It might also be worthwhile to join the RM team as a > release assistant in that case, ymmv. I'm willing to backup whoever takes this on, but I'd also like to get back to spending time on d-i and coldfire if possible. -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <stephen@marenka.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature