Re: Plan B for kfreebsd

[Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org>]

Hi,

Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Steven Chamberlain (steven@pyro.eu.org) [141110 23:10]:
> > Petr Salinger wrote:
> > > It is unclear, what we have to duplicate. Do we stay in testing ?
> > 
> > I'd like to know this as soon as possible as it affects our planning.
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > If we don't stay in testing, we'd at least want to archive off the
> > last-built kfreebsd packages before they are deleted...
> 
> That sounds sensible. As you want to do an unofficial release, I think
> we should coordinate so that this doesn't create unnecessary
> additional efforts.

Thank you, and others who have offered to help as they can;  but I'm sad
we're having to do this instead of being part of the official release,
and thus duplicate a lot of process/infrastructure that was already in
place since wheezy.

> I don't know how the others feel about, when should kbsd be removed
> from testing? That would give some impression how fast this should be
> done.

Is that a 'no' in answer to Petr's question:  kfreebsd actually must be
removed from testing?

I think removing it anytime in the next 1-3 months would be okay from
our point of view.  Would you normally delete the packages outright,
or archive them off in any place similar to archive.d.o?

I guess snapshots.d.o would still have copies of the last packages that
were _in_ testing?  But won't have the indices _for_ testing.

> > But certainly for unofficial releases, a supplemental repository would
> > be great for us.  We can bypass usual freeze policy to fix bugs we think
> > are important, which may not have got an unblock.
> 
> I'd replace that with "that allows to have an freeze policy centered
> around kbsd".

I don't think it's limited to that;  in making an unofficial release,
we become our own release managers, and can try to apply our own...
personal taste here.  I'll discuss that on -bsd@ rather than here.

Regards,
-- 
Steven Chamberlain
steven@pyro.eu.org