[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: m68k release future

On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 06:58:21AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hey all,
> So, from the other thread, seems like the idea for m68k is:
>    (a) keep building unstable as per usual


>    (b) maintain a separate testing-like suite for m68k based on (and
>        thus probably trailing) the real testing, maintained by m68k
>        porters, that is installable (using d-i etc)


>    (c) not bother with an etch-equivalent release for m68k

I'm not sure about this. I'd sure like to have some form of stable, even
if we only do base and security-support base-type packages. I'd hate to 
have to maintain unstable/testing as the distribution on my buildd's.

>    (d) try to release with etch+1, possibly with coldfire support


> The m68k certification pages on the wiki suggest it might be good to
> have acks/naks from:
>    1.  Wouter Verhelst
>    2.  Stephen R Marenka


>    3.  Christian T. Steigies
>    4.  Adam Conrad
>    5.  Michael Schmitz
> I think Michael Schmitz has said he's willing to do some of the
> maintenance work on the testing-like stuff; I'd suggest it'd probably be
> ideal to have either two or three people doing it -- you have to already
> be a DD though. It might also be worthwhile to join the RM team as a
> release assistant in that case, ymmv.

I'm willing to backup whoever takes this on, but I'd also like to get back 
to spending time on d-i and coldfire if possible.

Stephen R. Marenka     If life's not fun, you're not doing it right!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: