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

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

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.


Reply to: