On Sunday 20 March 2005 16:59, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > 7) the porter team has the possibility to providing arch-specific
> > overrides to solve the issue of a package not passing from unstable
> > into testing due to a tier1-specific RC bug or whatever. Should be used
> > sparingly though.
>
> This seems problematic in this respect.
>
> I might have missed the previous suggestions or the obvious flaws of the
> idea, but why not have something along the lines of "releasing all
> 'tier2' arches with the packages they have", i.e. agressive per-arch
> removal for uninstallable/unusable/not-up-to-date packages. Those arches
> that have something worth releasing at release time (installer, all
> priority >= important, x% of optional in usual release quality) do that.
> This way, the security support of the additional arches would stay
> largely the same.
> One could have the present testing rules up to some
> point and switch to "if arch-specific RC bugs/testing delays pop up,
> stuff get removed" for release.
I like this idea, any cons?
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
Attachment:
pgpw9n4O5QOey.pgp
Description: PGP signature