On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 04:36:11PM +0100, Michael Schmitz wrote: [...] > > Later on, we talked about us not being part of etch, and what we could > > do about that (basically, he asked me whether we were okay with him > > dropping all m68k packages from stable once it released, which I > > denied). I mentioned the suggestion that had been done by aj regarding > > us having an etch and separate britney runs for m68k, but also that not > > much had happened in that regard; I also talked about the suggestion > > *blush* I'm still willing to help there - I won't have much time to figure > it all out by myself though.
Okay. Same here :) > > which Jeroen and I had come up with in Breda last summer, where we would > > still be able to do uploads targeted at an m68k version of stable after > > the release. James first thought I meant we would like to be able to > > upload to "regular" stable after it released, which he told me would be > > impossible without changes to dak to remove a safety net forbidding > > random changes to stable (which he's not willing to make, for obvious > > That has never been an option. What I understood to be possible was > re-adding an arch once a stable point release is ready. Right, but that would be in the hands of the stable release managers, and I guess would depend on how good our port works :) [...] > > Personally, I think it'd be best if we could go this way. Having a > > testing-m68k with our own britney runs and our own criteria for having > > packages migrate to etch makes it much harder for us to remain in sync > > with "regular" etch; being able to polish up some packages after the > > fact makes that much easier. So I'd like to request that as part of > > releasing etch as stable, ftpmasters create a second suite called either > > "etch-m68k" which we can upload packages to. > > So you want to bypass testing altogether, and instead upload to etch-m68k? Yes. The main problem with having our own "testing", as I see it, is syncing with the testing that already exists, and still being able to do sourceful uploads that are required for our arch-specific bugfixes. If we build a stable that's, uh, "etched" (no pun intended) on a stable release, whereby we upload fixes for m68k-specific bugs using sourceful uploads (if necessary), I think that'd be way easier to accomplish. No? -- <Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
