On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a > release architecture for etch. > We have also asked about removing m68k from testing since it is not > currently a release candidate; Anthony Towns has indicated his preference > to defer this until another solution can be implemented for m68k's needs. > This raises the question again of what such a structure should look like; I > think it would be a good idea for us to begin to tackle this question, It's just short of a month since Steve posted this, with, as far as I've seen, no concrete suggestions on what the m68k porters want to do about this. I expect we'll be dropping m68k from etch fairly shortly, unless someone comes up with a plan for supporting a "Debian 4.0-m68k" release in the next few days. I'm not sure if that's necessarily a good idea though -- from what I've seen it might be more useful just to come up with a plan for supporting a "Debian testing-m68k" variant instead; in which case it won't much matter if m68k gets dropped from etch; testing can get reconstructed from unstable relatively easily. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature