On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:52:44PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > > Sounds a lot more like a threat than an incentive. > Maybe it is a threat. (Incidentally, it is the exact same > threat/incentive that you and other RMs have used with individual > developers who have buggy packages that are holding up the release - > hence IMHO it's eminiently fair, just targeted at a different group of > developers.) It's much grander in scope. Removing architectures isn't a trivial thing to do: it affects whole bunches of packages that were only being kept around because they were needed for that architecture, makes Debian completely unusable for a whole range of people and situations, and is very difficult to change your mind about. > If any arch got on the ball and ported d-i between > sarge and sarge+1, a point release of sarge (3.1r1) could target that > architecture as well. No way, point releases need to be minor, and adding an architecture is anything but that. A more plausible threat, IMO, is "If you don't have a functioning installer by release, then sure, you'll release, but you won't be installable when you do." Completely tautological, but still has those nice black overtones. But since d-i doesn't work at all yet, that's a bit premature. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Description: PGP signature