Re: Architecture qualification
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:51 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 15/05/12 21:41, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:22 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> >> On 15/05/12 17:18, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >>> http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html
> >>
> >> Should we add a row labeled "auto-signing" there?
> >>
> >> auto-signing makes things less a PITA and make transitions run (a bit)
> >> faster. It'd be very nice if we could require auto-signing for release
> >> architectures. It has been done for security already.
> >
> > Well, given how close we (hopefully) are to the freeze, we'd mostly be
> > talking about supporting the architecture in stable, where transitions
> > are obviously not an issue.
> >
> It helps to prepare the release though. and I was told it was
> appreciated when point releases are in preparation ;)
The bit you didn't quote also pointed out that it's not something the
porters can generally do anything about, so isn't really relevant for
the purposes of a mail sent _to porters_, which is what the current
thread was primarily about.
In any case, I'm not going to unilaterally add new criteria right now.
If there's consensus that it should be included, then we can of course
look at that.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: