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
right people.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Reply to: