[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 10:52:29AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> Let me try to be clear.  I am not necessarily in favor of dropping
> arches.  I am opposed to having portability issues make new releases
> drag on forever, and slowing security releases.  We have been told

I am too.

I have no objection to releasing security updates for the 4 "main" archs
with announcements, and the rest as soon as they're compiled (which
should be just about as soon for most).

I also have no objection to releasing stable later on some archs, or not
at all, of nobody from those archs works to do it.

I do object to preventing those archs from releasing stable, and from
being supported at all by the security infrastructure.

> The only real showstopper for some of the slower arches is that they
> take too long to compile some of the bigger packages, and that slows
> down getting security upgrades out the door.  I was under the impression

I also have no objection to simply releasing security notices
immediately, and posting .debs for each arch as they become available.
m68k users will just have to deal with the fact of life that it could
take a couple of days to get their updates.

But the proposal as given takes a far more draconian approach.

-- John

Reply to: