Re: Suggestion: Skip Slink!
Avery Pennarun wrote:
> However, if slink/sparc is released with a few changes after slink/i386,
> there's nothing stopping the i386 people from rebuilding their packages with
> sparc's changes in order to catch up. We just call that Debian 2.1r2, and
> sparc never made a 2.1r1 release. If I'm an admin concerned with
> consistency, I stayed with hamm until all my required arches were stable.
I agree (came up with the same idea independantly, in fact).
see shy jo