Re: Status of armel in the archive?
On 2008-01-31 01:22 +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:48:51PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:32:55AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>
> > Note that we don't intend to include arm in lenny+1 and would like to
> > have a clear commitment from the arm/armel pointers to switch to only
> > armel (no arm anymore) after lenny.
>
> Armel is already where most of the work is done, and already at
> last debconf we agreed that the best way to proceed would be to
> release lenny with arm + armel and the drop arm. So, yes, we
> can commit to that[1]. If there is still oldabi arm user demand,
> we can support them using the debian-ports infrastructure with
> relatively little effort.
Yep. That is all good. In line with Debconf consensus, and porter
direction, and having arm+armel for one release allows our users some
time for transition, so we are not 'pulling rug out' from under them.
Hopefully Strongarm/oldabi demand will not continue too long after
lenny+1, because oldabi will inevitably degrade slowly...
> > IRC discussion with tbm showed that lenny should include both arm and
> > armel to give people a chance to switch from a supported arm to a
> > supported armel
>
> This is currently in the hands of ftp-masters, and Anthony Towns has
> already agreed to add armel to the archive. Which, I think is totally
> awesome :)
Indeed.
Thanx to all for their efforts on this.
Wookey
--
Principal hats: Balloonz - Toby Churchill - Aleph One - Debian
http://wookware.org/
Reply to: