[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:41:32AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > Depends on your point of view. From my POV I can easily miss those 
> > packages on m68k, because I don't use them. Other people won't be able 
> > to live without those ones. It's a matter of what goals do you want to 
> > achieve: release with etch and miss some packages or try to solve all 
> > bugs, but won't be a release candidate.
> > 
> > As we don't have much time left to fix all those bugs, I'm in favour 
> > of the first option.
> I'm not. I don't want to go out and say "Yeah, we released something, 
> but it only works if you don't try this or that, because that doesn't 
> work".
> Either we have a correctly working port and we release, or we don't, and 
> we don't.

What's the difference? Either you release incomplete, or you are 
incomplete at the deadline and don't release. But either way we must 
complete the distribution post release.

And isn't it a moot point? I would have thought that the rules for 
inclusion in etch would determine what "complete" means.

> > If someone really needs those tools, he might compile the sources on 
> > his own with an older version of gcc or such.
> We're not Gentoo, we're Debian.

It's true that Gentoo's m68k effort never saw a release.


Reply to: