Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
Anthony Towns wrote:
> >The "stabilise" is the missing part in the proposal. Stabilization and
> >security would need to be done outside Debian.
> From the announcement:
> Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
> are not going to be left out in the cold. The SCC infrastructure is
> intended as a long-term option for these other architectures, and the
> ftpmasters also intend to provide porter teams with the option of
> releasing periodic (or not-so-periodic) per-architecture snapshots of
> What that actually means is that when porters want to stabilise, they'll
> be able to simply stop autobuilding unstable, fix any remaining problems
> that are a major concern, and request a snapshot be done. That'll result
> in a new "snapshot-20050732/main/binary-foo" tree
How is arch:all handled in this scenario? Does the snapshot include
them as well?
> matching the work in unstable and a corresponding source tree;
Is it possible to alter snapshot source packages in order to fix
> at which point CDs/DVDs can be
> burnt from the snapshot, and unstable development can continue. That
> tree will persist for a while, depending on how much archive space it
> takes up.
At least one known good (and not too old) snapshot needs to stay around,
otherwise it isn't possible to re-create a buildd chroot from official
debian packages when unstable breaks severly.