[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Plan B for kfreebsd


Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org> writes:
> Christoph Egger wrote:
>> It means we need a stable release of some sort to keep DSA provided
>> hardware. That's currently buildds and porterboxes.
> That's annoying.
> To provide stable/security support ourselves, it seemed we'd need an
> unofficial repo, and that doesn't sound like something DSA could use.

<weasel> christoph: the ftp-folks wouldn't mind having a jessie-kfreebsd suite in the main archive.

With our own acceptance policy I guess (like backports has different
people accepting and stuff) and DSA would sure be willing to use
that. All it means is we need to do some release that is close enough to
being debian for the infrastructure.

It means we can't only do some rolling stuff and expect DSA to run
hardware for us for example.

> Although, how is that handled for hurd-i386?  I assume it has no
> security support, there may be some unofficial packages used;  are
> therefore none of their machines DSA?

These are "private" machines


9FED 5C6C E206 B70A 5857  70CA 9655 22B9 D49A E731
Debian Developer | Lisp Hacker | CaCert Assurer

Reply to: