Re: Freeze Please?
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 12:32:16PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le ven 07/02/2003 à 11:52, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > There another obvious solution: if an architecture has not enough
> > developers to care for its packages then it should be removed from
> > testing so it will not stop progress on the architectures which actually
> > matter to users.
> > If the situation will get better later they can be added again.
>
> I second that proposition. Keeping m68k in a releasable state is
> becoming more and more a hassle, and it could be even worse for stable
> than it is for testing: imagine some security fix needs a rebuilt that
> takes a week, will we have to wait for a week to get the DSA ?
[snip]
Just out of curiosity: how many people actually *use* Debian on m68k on a
regular basis? I was talking with Jeff Bailey IRL a few weeks ago, and he
mentioned how, uhh, *fast*, m68k is. Does anyone actually use Debian/m68k
for serious purposes? If it's just a cool curiosity, then I propose we
disregard it for the purposes of getting libc into testing.
(As far as m68k developers are concerned... Jeff said that it's basically
on the shoulders of *one* person, who seems to be currently unavailable.
I.e., the current glibc m68k problems aren't going to go away until that
person is back and finds the time to fix those problems. Sure, others have
been trying to track down those problems, but it's basically groping in
the dark. I'm not sure if it's worth holding up all the other archs from
going into testing just because of a niche arch like m68k.)
T
--
Some days you win; most days you lose.
Reply to: