Re: armel/armhf in stretch LTS
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 09:43:41PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 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.
stretch LTS and buster have the same EOL, and for armel/armhf they
have the same buildd problem.
> >> 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
> >DSA-maintained buildds.
> Enjoy your preconceptions. *Nothing* of what you're writing here might
> actually be necessary. How about waiting a little to see how things
How much exactly is "waiting a little"?
Building armel for buster is an urgent issue on my plate,
if you have a solution for that please share it.
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed