Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
Scripsit Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:54:24AM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> There is no visible reason why the solution has to include a ban on
>> making any stable release for a minor architecture at all.
> The question is, if we're not going to be releasing in tandem, and the
> source packages aren't going to be kept in sync (various people have
> already implied that any "stable" release for these archs is going to
> require separate/patched sources, which isn't really a good thing), and
> the existing release team is not going to be managing that process, is
> it actually still a *good thing* to tie it to our existing Debian
> infrastructure in other ways?
That remains to be determined, as the various porting teams decide
which kinds of release they think they'll be able to do.
I think it is clearly a *bad thing* if this future determination has
to be carried out under ground rules that says that *no* Debian
infrastructure, existing or not, must ever be used in preparing
releases for the lesser architectures. My reason for being in this
thread is to convince you and the rest of the Vancouver people to
revise the rules to make them stop saying that.
> If unstable-only ports aren't enough, and the sources aren't going
> to match in the testing/stable versions, maybe we start to think
> about wanting to implement parallel infrastructure for these other
> ports, as well -- and maybe it's under the Debian umbrella, and
> maybe it isn't; I think it's better if it *is* still "Debian",
So you would be supportive of changing the Vancouver rules to allow
such infrastructure to be within Debian?
--
Henning Makholm "Larry wants to replicate all the time ... ah, no,
all I meant was that he likes to have a bang everywhere."
Reply to: