On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 09:04:18PM +0100, Adam Barratt wrote: >On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 20:24 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: >> > hurd-i386 >> >> No, not at all. It wouldn't be released at all at that point. (I.e. not >> copied >> into stable.) I'm very uncomfortable having such a thing alongside our >> regular architectures (even kfreebsd, which generally works for server >> stuff). > >There's a related question, which I just realised wasn't actually >explicit - does it make sense to add an architecture to testing at this >stage of the process which we don't think is releasable? My memory of >previous discussions is that the general answer was "no", although this >possibly depends on how one views the purpose of the testing suite.
Definitely not, IMHO. How hard are the RT / ftpteam going to stick to the "ship with Wheezy or you're out" agreement as written in http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/Hurd ? Is Hurd at the point where we could *reasonably* ship it as (at least) a technology preview? I'm unconvinced that it is, being brutally honest. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [email protected] Into the distance, a ribbon of black Stretched to the point of no turning back -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
