Re: Updates in the very-old-stable
On 01/07/2013 01:32 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 09:48:20PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 01/06/2013 09:08 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
>>> Ie, anything that is likely to be vulnerable remotely.
>> And also, anything that is likely to be a critical piece of software.
>> Like, for example I wouldn't really care about game servers...
> While this shouldn't matter if you do it the right way (as in, if you do
> it so people who *do* care about that can upload), please remember that
> just because it doesn't have value for your job or business shouldn't
> necessarily mean it also has no value for someone else's business.
Yes, I do agree with the above. The only limit should be the
amount of work time which everyone is ready to invest in.
Which is why I wrote about *my* specific use case, implying
that others might have other fields of interest.
> In other words, please make sure that whatever set-up you do also
> supports things that are mostly similar in their requirements but
> somewhat different in their effects.
I don't understand this sentence (sorry).
> If you find you're having to reject
> packages because, say, it'd stress the infrastructure too much or some
> such, you've lost.
So this poses the problem of having an efficient infrastructure.
Which means buildd for all arch, mirrors, etc.
Another idea that pops up. Obviously, if this starts somehow,
it will be for when Squeeze is declared EOL, so that's in about
a year of time. Probably we can have an open round table
about this at next Debconf.
Thomas
Reply to: