Re: How to define a release architecture
On Máirt, 2005-03-22 at 00:11 +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new, I
> > certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that arch,
> > however. So I'd say Matthew's explanation is not perfect. But the
> > reasoning behind it is not difficult to spot.
> >
> > Throwing out this requirement makes sense, if and only if there is another
> > way to get sure a released arch will not be left stranded. So, let's work
> > on these alternate ways, so that this rule can be removed.
> >
>
> It's not because you can't buy a new machine, the arch suddenly stops
> being useful.
I think the point of this requirement is to support it we need buildds
in the future for security fixes. Hence while I might like my mips box,
etc. it would be irresponsible for us to do a release that we could not
support in e.g. two years time when the motherboards of our buildds die.
Perhaps this clause could be refined, though: should it be a sub-arch
requirement and not just an arch one; or could we specify that its OK to
release if we have a given stock of replacement hardware available
(e.g. given our good relationship with HP, its likely we could get
sufficient Alpha hardware for several years after HP finally stop
shipping Alphas).
> Cheers,
>
> Peter (p2).
Regards
Alastair McKinstry
Reply to: