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

Re: ports.debian.org (Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)



On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:10:30PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include <hallo.h>
> * Colin Watson [Mon, Mar 14 2005, 02:40:56PM]:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:31:30PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > > Re: Andres Salomon in <[🔎] pan.2005.03.14.13.54.08.658006@debian.org>
> > > > without being constricted by others' deadlines and such.  Unfortunately,
> > > > the naming (second class citizen?), and the feeling that their
> > > > architectures are no longer "officially supported", means that people will
> > > > view this as a negative thing.
> > > 
> > > I'd propose to use a less "discriminating" name for the scc archive.
> > > What about ports.debian.org (which coincidentally already exists and
> > > http-wise points to http://www.debian.org/ports/)?
> > 
> > I like this idea. SCC was a working codename that I think was originally
> > intended to be changed as soon as somebody thought of something better,
> > but nobody ever quite got round to it ...
> 
> Does it sound discriminating because you associcate that with real life?
> Is "second class port" be a better name? (scp.d.o)? Or "non-releaseable
> ports", nrp.d.o?

I have proposed tier-1 ports for the main arches, tier-2 ports for the other
ready ports but dropped from official support, and tier-3 ports for
in-development ports.

Friendly,

Sven Luther



Reply to: