Re: A new arch support proposal, hopefully consensual (?)

[Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>]

Sven Luther wrote:

> Ok, this is the easy part, and also what the vancouver-proposal included, the
> difference comes in how the minority-arches are handled, and my proposal is a
> 'including' proposal, while the vancouver-proposal was 'excluding'.
>
> 4) each non-tier1 arches will have its own testing infrastructure, which
> would take both unstable and testing in account.
>
> 5) packages are built out of unstable into an arch-specific unstable binary
> repository on a separate machine (altough many minority arches may share this
> infrastructure).
>  
This allows for source package version skew on a per arch level.  In the 
worst case, each non-tier1 arch could have a different source package 
version when compared to tier1 and all of the other non-tier1 arches.

To have the least possibility for source package version skew, the 
non-tier1 arches should branch off of tier1-testing instead of 
tier1-unstable.

Mike