On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Therefore, we're planning on not releasing most of the minor architectures > starting with etch. They will be released with sarge, with all that > implies (including security support until sarge is archived), but they > would no longer be included in testing. > [...] i feel very,very bad about this, but perhaps it's what is needed. i have two *big* concerns though: - maintainers will start to downgrade or ignore bugs that are arch-specififc if that arch is not in "the" archive. we should have at least the requirement that a package must be functional in "the" archive + scc to be fit for testing (apart from really arch-specific packages of course) - there must be a way for a scc arch to get a stable release. why don't we either keep testing for scc archs but not do releases, so the porters can do their own stable releases of their arch or have per-arch testing? (the latter might lead to a source package explosion i think) cu robert -- Robert Lemmen http://www.semistable.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature