Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
Scripsit Stephen Gran <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> No, I thought the proposal stated quite clearly, if there are users and
> there are porters, a given arch is able to be included.
"Included" perhaps, but still banned from making stable releases
> All that means is that those interested will actually have to do
> some of the work to support things like security and the kernel.
No, it means that if they want their port to be useful for anything
else than personal playthings where one can afford random breakage,
they will have to leave Debian and start a separate, perhaps
Debian-derived, distribution that does not prohibit the distribution
of stable .debs while one is working to prepare the next release.
Do we really want to tell people to leave the project and start
something else instead of contributing *within* Debian?
> I know many of you already do quite good work as porters, and I mean
> no offense. But I can see quite clearly that it would be difficult
> for the security team or other groups to keep up with things growing
> the way they are.
Sure. But effectively throwing people out in this manner ought not to
be the answer.
Henning Makholm "This imposes the restriction on any
procedure statement that the kind and type
of each actual parameter be compatible with the
kind and type of the corresponding formal parameter."