On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 09:43:41PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > 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.
stretch LTS and buster have the same EOL, and for armel/armhf they have the same buildd problem. > >> 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? How much exactly is "waiting a little"? Building armel for buster is an urgent issue on my plate, if you have a solution for that please share it. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed