On 03/27/2013 06:14 PM, Michael Banck wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:19:15PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: >> On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 11:46 +0100, Michael Banck wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:41:50AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 09:43 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: >>>>> Svante Signell, le Wed 27 Mar 2013 09:17:50 +0100, a écrit : >>>>>> On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 01:51 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: >> .. >>>> I was referring to a debian maintainer adding a hurd-specific patch into >>>> sid->testing, that won't happen. These bug reports+patches are just >>>> rotting in the BTS until Wheezy is released. Am I missing something >>>> here? >>> >>> After wheezy is released, those patches will hopefully be applied, >>> the packages built again and they return to the archive. >> >> If they are removed they have to be re-introduced again after Wheezy. >> What's the practical difference to keeping them cluttering the archive? >> Does this affect the Wheezy release at all? > > The practical difference is that they do not clutter up the archive and > we are being nice citizens.
Plus if we ever want to be a release-architecture like kfreebsd-*, we can't have outdated binaries because those will block migration to testing. In that case, for leaf packages, a missing binary is better than an outdated binary. Regards, Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
