Re: stable - yes or no?
Scripsit David Schmitt <david@schmitt.edv-bus.at>
> 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.
Um, isn't the context of this discussion that some of the
architectures that (will) have showed this *by being released with
sarge* will not be allowed to do the same thing for etch?
> amd64 proves that it is possible to archive
> potential tier-1 status without much support from the core teams.
Support from the core teams is not the issue, except insofar as it
constitutes "support" to allow stable and testing .debs to exist in
the archive. It does not have to be the full mirror network, but if an
architecture is only allowed to have a single Debian-signed Packages
file, i.e. bleeding-edge unstable, then everything else seems to be
moot.
> Last but not least, nobody can prohibit you from assembling a
> package pool for $tier-2-arch which mostly resembles Debian/stable
> tier-1.
Of course. But they _are_ saying that if I do it, it has to be outside
Debian.
> 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.
I have become too confused to follow whether SCC means tier 2
(released, just not widely mirrored) or tier 3 (banned from ever
releasing). However, as far as I read the plan, it clearly states
that Debian is to cease providing infrastructure for any other suite
than unstable (or experimental) for the architectures that are deemed
unworthy. Andreas Barth later asserted that tier-3 architectures will
be allowed to have "testing" nonetheless, but "stable" still seems to
be banned.
--
Henning Makholm "Apologies if I am repeating obvious
conclusions. My only gateway onto the Net is
very expensive, and I miss many important postings...
Please write to me and tell me what you think. I don't get much mail."
Reply to: