Re: heads up
Michael Banck <email@example.com> writes:
> To be precise, we were a 'second class citizen' for all the time. So in
> case we manage to stay at that level for the time being, we might even
> profit from it. E.g. unstable snapshots look very much like what Philip
> Charles did with the CD releases in the past, but we could have the
> packages in the archive proper. Also, other to-be-scc'd arches will
> have to implement their own testing and release infrastructue, so we
> could borrow from that.
If this goes through, we won't be on SCC at all. Moving to SCC is
harmless, but this is asking us to be not on SCC at all.
> I have talked to Martin Michlmayr yesterday and he promised support for
> a autobuilder box and another Debian Developer has already stepped up
> and volunteered hardware. I will talk to the local admins at my
> university about hosting a box (I got a low-performance one already)
> there tomorrow. There are other alternatives like e.g. the HurdFr
> boxes, but we have not talked to HurdFr officially about how this would
> work out.
Getting hardware has not been the problem; it's been stability.
> When confronted with this requirement, the people who made them said
> they just want to keep out 'toy architectures' from the archive.
> Whether this applies to us I don't know, different people have different
So instead of saying "we're real, waah waah", we should simply meet
whatever silly requirement they want. Shouldn't be too tough.
> I propose to let the dust around this proposal settle and then talk to
> the ftp-masters (as those appear to be responsible for the
> 'in-the-archive-at-all' bit, while the release managers decide who gets
> to be a releasing arch; we're not that far yet) calmly about what needs
> to be done.
Yes, that's a sensible thing.
- heads up
- From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: heads up
- From: Michael Banck <email@example.com>