Re: A new arch support proposal, hopefully consensual (?)

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 06:24:23PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >The idea is that we don't want to hold up release, but we still want to 
> >allow
> >for a future release at a later point, in a stable point release. 
> >Especially
> >now that we are told that security is not an issue.
> 
> >>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.
> 
> >Not sure if this is a good idea. The main point will be for the 
> >arch-specific
> >fix to get in in a timely fashion, and it being blocked by unrelated
> >tier1-breakage, not to remove the package and thus remove the fix. If you 
> >are
> >saying that we should in this case remove the tier1 packages from testing
> >though :)
> 
> Well, you'll at most get "classic" Security-Support for those sources 
> that match the "regular ones" and I doubt that the policy for point 
> release will - or should - be weakened to allow arch-fixes. My 

Why not ? the aim is to provide stable releases for those arches, not to drop
them and let them handle of their own, so some arrangement needs to be made.

This is i think the price we have to pay for letting these arches get out of
sync with testing.

> impression was that a split into supported / less supported (yeah, 
> reminiscent of a popular derivative) of the ports would reduce the total 
> amount of work while not overburdening the general process.

Yes, but without dropping support.

Friendly,

Sven Luther