On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:29:51PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: >On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 09:07:45PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> This is utterly premature and unwarranted. Don't be ridiculous. > >Personal attacks don't change the facts.
You *are* being ridiculous. You're claiming to know ~2 years early what we'll end up with. >> So long as there are people interested enough in LTS for those >> architectures to cover the work and costs, there's no reason to stop. > >"work" would include that there have to be buildds running and >maintained outside the Debian infrastructure. > >"work" would also include that every package built by these buildds will >have to be manually signed by a DD before it can enter stretch-security, >similar to what is currently done for kfreebsd-*. > >This would not be completely imposible, but an order of magnitude >more "work and costs" than for an architecture that has normal >DSA-maintained buildds. Enjoy your preconceptions. *Nothing* of what you're writing here might actually be necessary. How about waiting a little to see how things develop? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [email protected] "I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code is in use on a military site..." -- Simon Booth
