On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 02:37:02PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > Patched to do what differently? > > > > * To recognize etch-m68k as an actually existing suite (that's buildd, > > really, rather than sbuild, but okay) > > Does the build database already know about etch-m68k? Does it even need > to? Can't we just figure out what needs to be done for the new 'stable' ?? > > (/me going to disable stable building for the time being anyway) There is a new stable and oldstable w-b db for m68k. > > * To do the changelog munging you mentioned above ;) > > That would be another option :-) > > > I haven't terribly looked into this yet, though, so it might be that I'm > > confused and that it actually /is/ possible. I'll have a look at it > > sometime next weekend. > > I haven't actually looked at it at all. Do we still need to handle the > testing scripts ourselves? I would think testing would continue as before, although we seem to have been dropped from testing. I wonder if we can get added back? However, we do need to handle stable updates and perusing security.d.o would lead me to believe we need to handle all our security packages (for both testing and stable). There is also no etch-m68k-proposed-updates dist. Replacing stable with etch-m68k seems to work fine as far as the regular archive is concerned. I'm upgrading both zeus and poseidon to etch, although I hate to lose security support. I'm not sure what w-b stable and testing really mean, but I'll leave them setup on zeus and poseidon for now Peace, Stephen -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <stephen@marenka.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature