On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 16:27 +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:19:11AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 16:47 -0800, Nicholas Breen wrote: > > > * is it too late in the release cycle to propose this as a release goal? > > > should squeeze+1 be the target instead? squeeze+2? > > > > I think it's too late for squeeze, but squeeze+1 should definitely be > > doable. > > How many packages are affected? I think your previous email best answered that question. > Squeeze freeze is several months away > still. I am not sure about release-goal freeze, but even then, it could > be considered an inofficial release goal among debian-science at least. Oh, right. For some reason my mental calendar still has late '09 as the release goal date. I'm all for it then, at least unofficially. The other issue would be rebuilding all of the mpi-defaults packages at least on lam architectures when/if we decide to switch to mpich2. Count my vote in support of such a switch, which might be worth as much as $0.03-.04 since I wrote the original mpi-defaults. :-) -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part