On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 06:58:21AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Hey all, > > 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) > > (c) not bother with an etch-equivalent release for m68k I'm with Stephen on this one. It doesn't have to be a full release, but something that we and our users can use and that we can build security support packages for would be nice. > (d) try to release with etch+1, possibly with coldfire support s/possibly/presumably/ > The m68k certification pages on the wiki suggest it might be good to > have acks/naks from: > > 1. Wouter Verhelst Ack > 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; So have I, FWIW. > 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 release assistant in that case, > ymmv. In what way? Isn't the point of release assistants to be interested in more than just their pet architecture? Am I missing something? -- <Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature