Re: How to define a release architecture
Matthew Garrett <email@example.com> writes:
> * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
> Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive.
I don't understand this. What is the problem with Debian is keeping an
architecture alive? What problem are you trying to solve here?
> * the value of N above must not be > 2
> This effectively sets an upper limit on the length of time a single
> package may take to build, which helps ensure that doing things like
> security fixes for Openoffice doesn't become a problem.
If the point is to set an upper limit on the length of time a single
package may take to build, why not take that directly as a criterion?
It is even more objective. It might also encourage people to split
unreasonably large packages.