On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:09:42PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 06:59:44PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > > > [snip] As I said earlier in the thread I don't see much difference > > > between releasing and not releasing... > > > > The main difference is that we want to accomodate for people who do want > > to try or use Debian/m68k, but who do not want to have to deal with the > > ever-changing Debian Unstable, or who do not want to have to run 'while > > true;do apt-get update; apt-get upgrade; done' all the time. > > > > This would probably include machines in the debian.org domain. > > > > Additionally, there's the fact of not having to support a separate > > out-of-tree release of Etch. If we have too many bugs by the time etch > > freezes and the window for fixing bugs is over, then we would have to > > maintain separate versions of the toolchain packages outside of the > > 'normal' Debian infrastructure, which would have our bugs fixed. This > > could turn out being a rather large burden, which would not be necessary > > if we could fix all the bugs in time. > > When the release criteria were adopted, was there no provision made for > those architectures that couldn't meed the new rules?
I can't remember, but I could be wrong. > Might something be done within the debian infrastructure to assist those > architectures that are excluded from the etch release, such that they > could make a late release, without disturbing the current stable user base > and without introducing the burden of out of tree packages? Hmm. Perhaps. Not much has been said about that, however; only some handwaving, like "if necessary, we could do this or that"... we'll probably be able to get something that may work out of talking to the right people. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
