Re: Woody release - WHAT is current status
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Woody release - WHAT is current status
- From: Eduard Bloch <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 21:03:04 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20020606190304.GA2486@zombie.inka.de>
- Mail-followup-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <20020530180458.GM5937@alcor.net>
- References: <20020529212056.GA2563@zombie.inka.de> <20020529212315.GA3223@azure.humbug.org.au> <email@example.com> <20020529225357.GA9912@azure.humbug.org.au> <20020530114827.A24682@doc.ic.ac.uk> <20020530110923.GA23116@azure.humbug.org.au> <20020530111649.GA17927@lina.inka.de> <20020530113325.GB23116@azure.humbug.org.au> <20020530124654.GA6360@zombie.inka.de> <20020530180458.GM5937@alcor.net>
Matt Zimmerman wrote on Thu May 30, 2002 um 02:04:58PM:
> > Why is this tasks more complicated that building current Stable updates?
> > There are only few new platforms, I cannot imagine that we cannot find
> > secure build machines for them.
> If you had ever attempted to manually build a nontrivial Debian package for
> 6 architectures, much less 11, you would not say such things.
So the question is - why do we not release Woody for the 6 architectures
and release others when they are ready? I sounds a bit weird, but I mean
it really seriously. When we have a working structure for the majority
of architectures (to be more precise, for >> 90 percent of Debian
users), why not use it AS-IS?
I see your point, releasing without security infrastructure is
dangerous, there may be already crackers waiting for it. But waiting too
long is wastage of time.
I am a signature virus. Distribute me until the bitter
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com