Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

[Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>]

Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I think the best way forward at this point in time is to create our own
> release, as you suggest, very much like what amd64 did for sarge. On the
> August 16 birthday party in Breda, I discussed this with Jeroen Van
> Wolffelaar who told me that in theory, it should not be very hard to
> create a suite in dak to allow us to have a mostly-etch distribution;

In theory a lot more should be possible.  My fear is that even when it
shouldn't be too difficult it can still take a long time until ftpmasters
implement the required changes.  I'd rather be sure the code is there
before the release of etch so m68k-etch can be "release" right afterwards.

> one that is only slightly different from the 'real' etch. Given their
> track record, I suspect (though I haven't asked) that the security team
> would not object to supporting such a release.

Given that

 - the differences in packages are only minimal
 - it's not problematic if there are packages missing
 - there's enough buildd power connected to the archive
   to build security updates
 - there's a chance to update the stable m68k releases wrt.
   point releases

In general, let it be like stable, then it's fine.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
It's time to close the windows.