Re: m68k release future
> So, from the other thread, seems like the idea for m68k is:
> (a) keep building unstable as per usual
> (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 ... I volunteered for this, as did Wouter IIRC.
> (c) not bother with an etch-equivalent release for m68k
I'd like to keep that option, at least to build a release of our own
design (maybe leaving out some tough stuff; at the very least something
you can install and then work from).
> (d) try to release with etch+1, possibly with coldfire support
> 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
ack on that as well.
> release assistant in that case, ymmv.
I was going to pester you about the necessary prerequisites anyway (like
where to run the testing scripts, ftp-master accounts etc.).
I'll probably ask for someone else to take over buildd administration for
me, and I hope to have Atari kernel hacking sorted shortly.