* Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote: > Thats absolutely counterproductive to the people wanting amd64 support > in sarge. They would want to delay sarge as much as possible so amd64 > support can be added too. And *that* kind of attitude is counterproductive to *Debian* as a whole, and goes completely against our users. I like amd64, I'd like to see it in sarge, but I'm certainly not going to encourage people to neglect their packages or ask them to not fix RC bugs, or file RC bugs with the intention of delaying a much needed release; even if that means that release won't include the architecture I prefer. > > Bitching won't help AMD64 to get into Sid faster. Helping out with > > things that block the release of Sarge will. AND tends to create a lot > > How about 200 patches to RC bugs? I think the count for amd64 patches > for general RC bugs is around that number. Bring them up during a BSP so that they can be NMU'd and taken care of, I assume there's bugs in the BTS with said patches appropriatly marked RC if they're general RC bugs. > > more goodwill than whining your ass off does. Make sure that everything > > works perfectly, so that a nice slip-in of AMD64 into Sarge r1 will be > > That only works if amd64 is in sid so it can be tested under realistic > conditions and with the right debs. Security wise it is impossible to > use the debs from alioth to upload to ftp-master or worse to release > sarge r1. Sure, amd64 needs to go into sid and be fully recompiled prior to discussing the possibility of it being released with sarge. This would be one of the reasons why the existing GR should be ignored. > Also any bugs showing up in amd64 need to be fixed before sarge is > released since point releases are for security fixes. This isn't entirely accurate. There have been updates for things beyond just security fixes in the past. I havn't actually heard anyone from the RM/SRM teams say that this idea of releasing amd64 as part of a point release won't happen. > No. And that part was just wrong in the GR. Yes, it was. The concept behind the GR is flawed, really. > Amd64 has been ready for sid inclusion since mid Feb. and if it had > been added back them the 6 month timeframe you suggest would not be a > problem. Eh, I'm not sure about 'since mid Feb.', but certainly it's been ready for a while now. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature