On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 12:47:19PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Personally, I think m68k would be better served by having a testing-m68k > > and taking occassional snapshots which serve as the supported stable-m68k > > release, rather than worrying about something equivalent to etch itself. > Why should we do this? As it looks right now, we are in not much different > shape than most other ports [...] Roman, please stop beating that horse. > The only problem right now is our backlog and we'll hopefully > see soon how quickly it can be reduced via distcc. FWIW, that would be a lot more convincing if it had happened a year ago when it was last suggested... http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/08/msg00009.html Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature