Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concernsj

[Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org>]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:04:26PM +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote:
> I see armel is already not a candidate for buster [0].
> So it seems we can discuss armhf, but no armel at all.
> I don't agree with this idea.
> And I think we should treat armel and armhf equally.

Please review the mail which originated this thread [1] where you will see
that both armel and armhf are affected by DSA's concern. If I understand
correctly, virtualisation of architectures in general is a possible
solution but there are problems in the case of these two.

At the end of the day, if Debian can't reliably run builders for an 
architecture we do not do users a service by pretending to be able to
support it in a formal release. A freeze may be for Christmas, but stable
is for at least five+ years.

-- 
Jonathan Wiltshire                                      jmw@debian.org
Debian Developer                         http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51