Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 10:10:10AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > * have m68k be in unstable, and have it have its own "testing-like"
> > > suite of some description
> > > + keeps the arch alive
> > > - some work to keep m68k-testing in sync with real testing needed
> > > - doesn't have real releases
> > > - may not have security support
> > Is it possible to run britney multiple times, the first time for all
> > releasable arches, and the following runs for each other arch, but
> > commit changes to etch/$arch?
> > For example, this would permit releasing an etch/m68k without a
> > separate archive.
> > Perhaps the maintenance of the testing propagation of m68k alone should
> > then be made by m68k porters instead of the *release* team.
> Finally a good proposal... thx! :)
I believe there are some problems because we don't want to have too many
versions of the same source package, that's why this is not generalized
and why we try to keep all arches in sync.
But in essence, this proposal is the same as Anthony's with its separate
"m68k-testing" suite ! I don't understand how you can be happy this time
and be unhappy before... ;-)
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :