Re: this post is not off-topic
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:00:18AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
> Thanks for chiming in, Collin.
>
> > Ah, yes. So the security team will have to support both potato and
> > woody, because both will be stable on different architectures. Package
> > maintainers will have to support wildly different versions of their
> > packages in stable. All this until the other architectures get a new
> > stable release - which, if we only cared about raw numbers of users
> > rather than developers willing to do the work, would most likely be
> > never.
>
> This is an important point.
>
> Woody, however, is supposed to support 11 arches to potato's 6. One could
> drop the 5 new arches without encountering this problem. Would dropping
> these 5 not help?
The new architectures are well-maintained, so no, not particularly. My
impression is that the security team are not all that willing to support
the six architectures from potato through to woody without the
infrastructure improvements currently in progress, let alone the five
new ones. We need the infrastructure improvements anyway, and once the
central components are finished I imagine that the cost per architecture
will not be particularly great.
I should also point out that this is completely the wrong time for this
discussion; it's way too late to even think about persuading the release
manager to change the architectures that will release with woody.
(Please don't Cc: me, by the way; I read the list. Thanks.)
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: