stable - yes or no? (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:57, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
>
> > This really makes unstable snapshotting, or building stable once it's
> > released as Anthony has also suggested in this thread, look like much
> > better options than trying to build out of testing.
>
> Building stable once it is released does look indeed like a good
> option. Only it's a pity that the Vancouver plan does not allow it.
If a arch can show that it is able to support a high-quality-Debian-stable as
we all know and love, it can be promoted to tier-1. amd64 proves that it is
possible to archive potential tier-1 status without much support from the
core teams.
If on the other hand an arch cannot collect enough man- and machine-power to
support such a release (with security, without too heavy shlibs-skew) it is
only honest not to put the stamp of Debian/stable unto such a thing.
Last but not least, nobody can prohibit you from assembling a package pool for
$tier-2-arch which mostly resembles Debian/stable tier-1. As far as I
understand it, scc.d.o infrastructure is explicitly for such ventures on
those architectures that need relativly stable 12-18 month release cycles.
Regards, David
--
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
-- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
Reply to: