Re: hurd-i386 qualification for Wheezy
On 19.05.2012 19:04, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Very quickly following up on a possible nomenclature issue and a
of other things.
On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 17:29 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
- We of course aim at tech preview for wheezy only, not a full
release. Our goal is to establish a testing distribution for wheezy
which does not block others ports (i.e. so-called fuckedarch), and
a full testing for wheezy+1.
That's not what the phrase "tech preview" was used to mean for
kfreebsd-* at least.
I'm not sure we've ever released with an architecture which was in
either broken or fucked, but hopefully someone will correct me if I'm
mistaken on that.
Opinions as to whether it makes sense to release an architecture in
either of those states would also be welcome.