On Monday 14 March 2005 16:27, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > If I had to think of a rationale for it, the only one I could think of > would be "the architecture needs to be fast enough not to block security > updates".
This is not the only one. Taking days to build some packages also leads to shlibs-skew and problems with testing migration. Both which only affect tier-1 arches but not those in tier-2. > However, I consider an update whose $ARCH binaries are released a week > later not to be a problem. There is a fundamental problem: There are people (me included) who believe that a week delay for a security update is not acceptable. > Not when the alternate choice is to not have Debian support $ARCH at all. Please cite where this was proposed. I read the original Nybbles mail (and a part of the current thread) but couldn't find the "at all" bit. Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir Ãber ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
