[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:44:50AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > Why?  Because having an environment that works exactly the same across
> > multiple architectures is a Good Thing.  If I will no longer be able to
> > achieve that, then Debian on x86 becomes seriously less useful, because
> > now I'll have to maintain some Debian machines and some Gentoo machines
> > or something.  It would be easier for me to just maintain all Gentoo
> > machines.
> I'm pretty amazed that people are saying that without being an FCC that their
> arch will simply die. I don't understand why the porters, who've been so quick
> to point out that they'll host and maintain buildd's, aren't willing to simply
> track unstable and set up their own buildd network for their port. The m68k
> guys did it. So did amd64. dak is now in the archive, and sbuild has been there

It is not unstable that I am (most) worried about.

It is the lack of any possibility of a stable release that concerns me.
Even if the people for a given arch were to build a stable etch, it
would have no home in Debian, would suffer from being out of the loop on
security updates, etc.

> for ages. Quite frankly, I'll be shocked if m68k or anyone else doesn't make
> their own etch release within days of the official one.

That still doesn't solve the problem of security updates, for one, and
archive space, for another.

Now, having said that, some people have raised good points about the
continued viability of unstable for these archs, namely the tendency of
a number of maintainers to ignore arch-specific bugs until they become
RC, and such.

-- John

Reply to: