On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:38:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes: > > The inclusion of ia64 in the release count is a projection, based on > > where I believe things are today. Nothing the release team is doing > > ensures that ia64 is going to be a viable port, a year from now when > > we're trying to release etch; and nothing says that one or more of the > > other ports won't be in a position to meet those criteria and get added > > to the release list. > How can they be, since they will be off in another archive? You can't > decide now to put an arch in scc and at the same time say you won't > know whether it's in tier1 or tier2 until etch is close to release. Please re-read the proposal. Not all the architectures proposed for release with etch are architectures that have enough download share to justify keeping them on the primary mirror network; these are *separate*, if heirarchically related, requirements. Releasing archs via scc.debian.org (and mirror network) is not an obstacle, because scc.debian.org vs. ftp.debian.org is a *mirroring* convenience only. The uploads still all go through ftp-master.debian.org, which is where the release action happens. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature