Re: Security support for tier-2
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:37:22PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> >> Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or
> >> whatever) to their autobuilders,
> >
> > True - for as long as they do not try to upload the result to the
> > Debian archive, which will carry only "unstable".
>
> I do not consider this to be set in stone.
>
> The people who were at the meeting agreed on some things. Not everybody
> who has a stake, or even is responsible for the current support of $ARCH
> in Debian, was at the meeting. Therefore the result of the meeting is in
> no way binding on anybody. (This is regardless of the fact that the people
> responsible for it *did* say that the proposal is ... well, exactly that.)
Uh, the ftp-masters are responsible for maintaining the archive, and the
release team is responsible for managing releases. If they come to a
conclusion that it's impossible to make timely releases and keep all of
these architectures in a single archive, then that's their decision to
make.
If I were in one of those rolls, I know I'd be pretty upset if I made a
decision and then a bunch of people started ranting and raving about it
and said I had no power to make that decision. It would make me wonder
why the hell I'm in that roll anyway. And I'd probably quit out of
frustration.
> Otherwise, we would be leaving Debian en masse, instead of discussing the
> Vancouver paper.
By all means. If you care enough about a particular SSC arch, go create
your own stable releases on it based on the official Debian release.
That's exactly what the "proposal" is about.
--
Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to
pretend to like each other.
Reply to: