Hi John, On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:06:35AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > 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. Please clarify what you think a late-releasing stable arch is going to look like, in contrast to what has been proposed, given that keeping release architectures in sync is the only thing we have that guarantees the sources in testing (and therefore in stable) are in a releasable state for each of those architectures. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature