Re: Architecture qualification
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 09:04:18PM +0100, Adam Barratt wrote:
>On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 20:24 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> > hurd-i386
>> No, not at all. It wouldn't be released at all at that point. (I.e. not copied
>> into stable.) I'm very uncomfortable having such a thing alongside our
>> regular architectures (even kfreebsd, which generally works for server stuff).
>There's a related question, which I just realised wasn't actually
>explicit - does it make sense to add an architecture to testing at this
>stage of the process which we don't think is releasable? My memory of
>previous discussions is that the general answer was "no", although this
>possibly depends on how one views the purpose of the testing suite.
Definitely not, IMHO.
How hard are the RT / ftpteam going to stick to the "ship with Wheezy
or you're out" agreement as written in http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/Hurd ?
Is Hurd at the point where we could *reasonably* ship it as (at least) a
technology preview? I'm unconvinced that it is, being brutally honest.
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
Into the distance, a ribbon of black
Stretched to the point of no turning back