Re: hurd-i386 qualification for Wheezy
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 18:08 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 19.05.2012 19:04, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Very quickly following up on a possible nomenclature issue and a
> > couple
> > 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
> >> get
> >> 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.
> Anyone? :-)
> Opinions as to whether it makes sense to release an architecture in
> either of those states would also be welcome.
Is there a definition of what broken and fucked means, so this could be
related to. Also, is "tech preview" defined somewhere. Were there any
descriptions made/discussions when kFreeBSD was introduced for Squeeze?