Re: Hurd and the archive
>> with all the others (probably as a technology preview)...
>> So, release people: How likely is it that Hurd gets added to jessie?
> If added as a 'technology preview', what does that mean exactly?
Note that the tech preview was a softening of a requirement to get added
to wheezy. Which didnt happen...
> Would Hurd-specific RC-severity bugs stall a package's transition to
> testing? And would it be necessary to fix all Hurd-specific RC bugs to
> be able to release?
Unless it is added as a (whats the term in the code? fucked_arch?) well,
second class arch thats usually ignored, then yes, adding it will come
with all the usual requirements of a release arch.
Adding it and then keeping it out of the usual migration rules is asking
for failure from the beginning, accumulating cruft. Not a way to go, IMO.
> From the view of maintainers I think that would be the deciding factor,
> because it could imply extra work. Not everyone sees the benefits of
> porting efforts (whereas I see it as excellent QA and promotes better
> software design, hence I'm in favour of inclusion).
I would be in favour of including it if it actually would look like it
could be as up to the task as all the rest of the architectures are.
But it doesn't appear to me that it is that.
--
bye, Joerg
<rvb> Dafür hat Ubuntu nen kleinen.
Reply to: