Bug#27906: PROPOSED] Binary-only NMU's
> Since we cannot rebuild for all architectures simultaneously and do
> not want to withdraw binaries or wait with porting,
> *we MUST be able to have more than one source version in our archive*.
>
> As far as I'm concerned this leaves undecided only the following
> question: how can we best organise this and what should the result
> look like ? So far we have seen two proposals:
> i. Simply have them side by side, with some kind of way of making
> obsolete sources disappear eventually
> ii. Some arrangement with .nmu files
>
It was my understanding that one of the benefits of the "package pool"
reorganization of the archive was exactly that -- we would keep
multiple versions of packages (source and binary) around. Older
versions would be reaped periodically by a garbage collection routine,
but most would usually hang around for a while to give people a
fall-back option if needed. Multiple sources for different
architectures would not be reaped, since they would not be garbage.
Since we wanted to implement that idea for a number of reasons, why
don't we?
> Some people seem to be disagreeing with my statement about needing
> more than one source version in the archive at a time. I'll continue
> to argue with them in my forthcoming messages.
>
> Ian.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
Reply to: