Re: [buildd] Etch?
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:09:42PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 06:59:44PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> > > [snip] As I said earlier in the thread I don't see much difference
> > > between releasing and not releasing...
> > The main difference is that we want to accomodate for people who do want
> > to try or use Debian/m68k, but who do not want to have to deal with the
> > ever-changing Debian Unstable, or who do not want to have to run 'while
> > true;do apt-get update; apt-get upgrade; done' all the time.
> > This would probably include machines in the debian.org domain.
> > Additionally, there's the fact of not having to support a separate
> > out-of-tree release of Etch. If we have too many bugs by the time etch
> > freezes and the window for fixing bugs is over, then we would have to
> > maintain separate versions of the toolchain packages outside of the
> > 'normal' Debian infrastructure, which would have our bugs fixed. This
> > could turn out being a rather large burden, which would not be necessary
> > if we could fix all the bugs in time.
> When the release criteria were adopted, was there no provision made for
> those architectures that couldn't meed the new rules?
I can't remember, but I could be wrong.
> Might something be done within the debian infrastructure to assist those
> architectures that are excluded from the etch release, such that they
> could make a late release, without disturbing the current stable user base
> and without introducing the burden of out of tree packages?
Hmm. Perhaps. Not much has been said about that, however; only some
handwaving, like "if necessary, we could do this or that"... we'll
probably be able to get something that may work out of talking to the
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4