Re: amd64 and sarge
* Thomas Viehmann (firstname.lastname@example.org) [040726 23:10]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > What may be possible in my opinion is to add amd64 as a "maybe
> > broken"-architecture even to sarge (means: bugs only for that arch are
> > non-RC per definition, and this arch doesn't count for package
> > transits to sarge); on the other hand, porters uploads of amd64-binary
> > packages even to t-p-u are relaxed till sarge r1 (or so). Via this
> > way, amd64 packages are in the archive, even in the dist called sarge.
> I'm not quite sure I understand what this proposal means for the release
> How does fit with having one version of every given source package in a
> i.e. foo 4.3.2-1 in stable Sarge r0 has an amd64 bug which requires an
> invasive fix.
> Which will be the version for Sarge r1 on architectures besides amd64?
Depends on how invasive the fix really is - but probably unchanged.
> Which will be the version of the foo source package in Sarge r1?
Well, I guess there are not that many source packages that require an
invasive fix, so that there may be a newer source version for amd64
than for the rest. But of course, if it shows that there are too many
problematic candidates, than this could lead to not releasing amd64 as
part of sarge r1.
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C