Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 10:20 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> debian-riscv has been repeatedly asking for a single zero-impact
> to be included in *one* file in *one* dpkg-related package which
> allow riscv to stop being a NMU architecture and become part of
> debian/unstable (and quickly beyond), for at least six months, now.
> cc'ing the debian-riscv list because they will know the details about
> this. it's really quite ridiculous that a single one-line change
> having absolutely no effect on any other architecture whatsover is
> being actioned and is holding debian-riscv back because of that.
> what is the reason why that package is not moving forward?
I assume you're referring to the dpkg upload that's in proposed-updates
waiting for the point release in two weeks time? Please check your
facts before ranting, particularly with such a wide cross-posting.
Also, ttbomk, the dpkg change landing in stable is not likely to
magically lead to the architecture being added to unstable - a decision
which is not the release team's to make or block. Again, please ensure
you've actually done your research.
I'm also getting very tired of the repeated vilification of SRM over
this, and if there were any doubt can assure you that it is not
increasing at least my inclination to spend my already limited free
time on Debian activity.