Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 09:22:29PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> >Even if you still think that doing this early rather than late is
> >necessary from your point of view, I would still like to search for
> >alternatives, a compromise; say, that you create a stage in between 'not
> >considered' and 'fully considered', where e.g. a package could move from
> >unstable to testing even if it's broken on a not-fully-uptodate
> >architecture, but not remain there indefinitely and certainly not
> >release like that (unless the architecture is eventually fully dropped).
> So what to do after the definite period of time? Remove it from testing
> on all arches? That's not an option.
Could you explain that a bit more? Why is it not an option?
> You're free to search for alternatives, but there's little to find.
I realize that. I also want you to realize that the current way is not
optimal, and will actually make it harder for an architecture to reach
releaseable status again once it's no longer in that status.
Currently, it's a bit like, "once you're there, we don't care about you
anymore". Instead of helping architectures, you push them deeper into
problems with that attitude.
Note that I'm not complaining about this -- the rules were clear, and I
don't think we would've reached it had they been different in the way
that I'm suggesting; however, I do feel that this is something which
needs to be thought about for the next release cycle, because you *will*
run into problems otherwise.
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4