Re: vancouver revisited
Quoting Steve Langasek <email@example.com>:
> code that's not portable, then I don't see any point at all in treating
> these as release architectures to begin with, because at that point
> they're *not* shipping the same OS that the other architectures are.
Agreed, however, I would see "optional" packages, as, hm, optional.
If for some arch an optional package doesn't build (or is impractical,
like GNOME/KDE/OpenOffice for, say, m68k, IMHO) there is no problem.