Hello Vincent Lefevre. On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 09:34:56AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-05-11 06:41:43 +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > Please see #823893 for why this has not yet seen as well an update in > > unstable. > > OK, but a decision should be made quickly. If 3.2.0 is not ready yet > for unstable due to potential regressions, then a patched 3.1.2 should > be uploaded to unstable (basically with the same as patch as stable, > since the current version is exactly the same as the stable version > before the security update). IMHO, this latter solution is probably > better for testing; and if users see a regression in 3.2.0, they will > be able to downgrade to the patched 3.1.2.
The decision to support multiple architectures and treat them all equally (meaning all users will have to suffer if there is problem on only one of them) has already been made long ago in the Debian project and I don't see it up for discussion, no matter how much I'd also like to see it change. See the infamous Vancouver meeting for the results of the discussion when this came up last time! The only way to get this more quickly resolved is getting your hands dirty by helping out the kfreebsd porters and dig into investigating the issue there. See https://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2016/05/msg00032.html It might be so that we simply ignore the problem on kfreebsd and moves on without them, given that kfreebsd-* hasn't qualified for being a release architecture.... but I'd like feedback on the above from porters if possible first. Now get busy solving the problem instead of annoying people via the bts! Regards, Andreas Henriksson
