On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:32:55AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > >From a release team point of view, it's quite interesting if armel is > going to make it into the archive before lenny. It's quality is at least > matching the current arm port at the moment and after lenny (at the > latest) we would like to drop the current arm. A release with both > architectures side by side would be nice for the transition. > > Could you please comment on the current status and list outstanding > issues blocking the inclusion of armel in the archive?
Note that we don't intend to include arm in lenny+1 and would like to have a clear commitment from the arm/armel pointers to switch to only armel (no arm anymore) after lenny. IRC discussion with tbm showed that lenny should include both arm and armel to give people a chance to switch from a supported arm to a supported armel as people are still installing arm atm thinking that arm will be supported on lenny... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]