Re: James & me @ FOSDEM talking about m68k
> James Troup was at FOSDEM this weekend, and we talked a bit about the
> m68k situation there, amongst others. My first question was about the
> state of our buildd addition requests, and whether it was on purpose or
> so that none of them had been granted yet. He basically apologised for
> not acting upon any of those, and told me that it wasn't on purpose; the
> main reason apparently was him reading the mail, intending to reply to
> it sooner or later, but then forgetting to do so. I know the feeling.
Happens to me as well, and my e-mail incoming rate isn't anywhere near
> Later on, we talked about us not being part of etch, and what we could
> do about that (basically, he asked me whether we were okay with him
> dropping all m68k packages from stable once it released, which I
> denied). I mentioned the suggestion that had been done by aj regarding
> us having an etch and separate britney runs for m68k, but also that not
> much had happened in that regard; I also talked about the suggestion
*blush* I'm still willing to help there - I won't have much time to figure
it all out by myself though.
> which Jeroen and I had come up with in Breda last summer, where we would
> still be able to do uploads targeted at an m68k version of stable after
> the release. James first thought I meant we would like to be able to
> upload to "regular" stable after it released, which he told me would be
> impossible without changes to dak to remove a safety net forbidding
> random changes to stable (which he's not willing to make, for obvious
That has never been an option. What I understood to be possible was
re-adding an arch once a stable point release is ready.
> reasons). When I told him that I meant to create a separate suite --
> say, "etch-m68k" or so -- he told me this would be possible, and that we
> would also be able to do sourceful uploads then, to fix any RC bugs we
> might still have outstanding. Frans Pop, who happened to be present at
> that discussion mentioned that we'd have to do changes to the installer
> too, but I don't think that's too much of a problem.
> Personally, I think it'd be best if we could go this way. Having a
> testing-m68k with our own britney runs and our own criteria for having
> packages migrate to etch makes it much harder for us to remain in sync
> with "regular" etch; being able to polish up some packages after the
> fact makes that much easier. So I'd like to request that as part of
> releasing etch as stable, ftpmasters create a second suite called either
> "etch-m68k" which we can upload packages to.
So you want to bypass testing altogether, and instead upload to etch-m68k?