Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 20:45 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
> are not going to be left out in the cold.
I disagree. I feel that maintainers are going to ignore the SCC
architectures for the purposes of portability bugs and security fixes.
> - binary packages must be built from the unmodified Debian source
> (required, among other reasons, for license compliance)
This is a problem. No one will fix the portability bugs that plague, for
example, sparc (memory alignment SIGBUS) without them being severity
serious.
Therefore, I would support this plan *iff* it were stated that
portability bugs were still severity serious (I would not object to an
etch-ignore tag for the purpose of stating that they are irrelevant to
the release), that security bugs were still severity grave and critical
(again etch-ignore would be okay), and that maintainers actually have to
fix such bugs, or their packages could be pulled from the archive as too
buggy to support.
For the record, I own more sparc machines than any other single
architecture, and I am not pleased about this plan.
--
($_,$a)=split/\t/,join'',map{unpack'u',$_}<DATA>;eval$a;print;__DATA__
M961H<F$@8FAM;"!U<F%O<G-U(#QU<F%O<G-U0&=D:75M<&UC8VUL=G)U;6LN
M<FUL+F=Y/@H)>2QA8F-D969G:&EJ:VQM;F]P<7)S='5V=WAY>BQN=V]R8FMC
5:75Q96AT9V1Y>F%L=G-P;6IX9BP)
Reply to: