Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:36:16 -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> I second this proposal.
>
> Someone mentioned that my post[0] implies that ftpmaster will be solving
> this problem soon. I will believe it when I see it. We tried contacting
> ftpmaster for weeks/months? about the issue with no response. The post
> was just to state I got a statement out of them finally. ftpmaster in
> most cases refuses to comment at all. If what Daniel Silverstone told me
> is true then we should be seeing a post to d-d-a about the new SCC stuff
> in the next week. IMHO waiting another few months to start a GR on
> something that several groups have been dragging their feet on for a long
> time is not a good idea. Perhaps they were actually busy that whole time,
> but with their lack of communication what are we left to believe? (Note
> this point has been brought up numerous times in the past by many other
> DD's)
>
> Do we really want to wait another 2yr+ to release the amd64 arch?
Of course not, but do we want to keep pushing sarge back for every little
thing we'd like to see in it? Can't we just say alright, let's get amd64
into sid, and if it transitions into sarge quickly (and is in a releasable
state), we'll release sarge with it? Otherwise, if sarge is ready for
release, but amd64 isn't, let's just get sarge out and try and prepare the
next release reasonably quickly? We already know what we need to do for
sarge+1 (amd64, if not already in sarge; SC adherence; and any necessary
d-i updates, which shouldn't be anywheres near as painful as bf was).
Let's not penalize all architectures (and all debian users) for the sake
of some amd64 users.
I'll say it again; sure, a GR for forcing amd64 into sid is fine. But
another requirement for sarge is not going to help things.
Reply to: