Re: armel/armhf in stretch LTS
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:29:51PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 09:07:45PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> This is utterly premature and unwarranted. Don't be ridiculous.
>Personal attacks don't change the facts.
You *are* being ridiculous. You're claiming to know ~2 years early
what we'll end up with.
>> So long as there are people interested enough in LTS for those
>> architectures to cover the work and costs, there's no reason to stop.
>"work" would include that there have to be buildds running and
>maintained outside the Debian infrastructure.
>"work" would also include that every package built by these buildds will
>have to be manually signed by a DD before it can enter stretch-security,
>similar to what is currently done for kfreebsd-*.
>This would not be completely imposible, but an order of magnitude
>more "work and costs" than for an architecture that has normal
Enjoy your preconceptions. *Nothing* of what you're writing here might
actually be necessary. How about waiting a little to see how things
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
"I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code
is in use on a military site..." -- Simon Booth