On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:41:32AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > > Depends on your point of view. From my POV I can easily miss those > > packages on m68k, because I don't use them. Other people won't be able > > to live without those ones. It's a matter of what goals do you want to > > achieve: release with etch and miss some packages or try to solve all > > bugs, but won't be a release candidate. > > > > As we don't have much time left to fix all those bugs, I'm in favour > > of the first option. > > I'm not. I don't want to go out and say "Yeah, we released something, > but it only works if you don't try this or that, because that doesn't > work". > > Either we have a correctly working port and we release, or we don't, and > we don't. What's the difference? Either you release incomplete, or you are incomplete at the deadline and don't release. But either way we must complete the distribution post release. And isn't it a moot point? I would have thought that the rules for inclusion in etch would determine what "complete" means. > > If someone really needs those tools, he might compile the sources on > > his own with an older version of gcc or such. > > We're not Gentoo, we're Debian. It's true that Gentoo's m68k effort never saw a release. -f -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
