Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> Some maintainers have already opted to move their GFDL documentation
> to non-free for sarge, but the vast remainder will need to be dealt
> with soon after sarge's release to keep us on track for etch.

I assume you mean that the documentation will need to be dealt with,
not the maintainers. :)

My first thought is that the first part of this (reducing the number
of archs that get official releases) is a good idea and the criteria
seem reasonable.  But the second part seems unnecessary.  We can
easily take the archs that we don't intend to mirror and put them on a
different place from ftp.gnu.org; why would they need to be removed
from it enterely?  Also, the first part has a clear statement of which
archs pass its tests at present; but the second does not that I could
see.

Thomas