On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a > > release architecture for etch. > > > We have also asked about removing m68k from testing since it is not > > currently a release candidate; Anthony Towns has indicated his preference > > to defer this until another solution can be implemented for m68k's needs. > > This raises the question again of what such a structure should look like; I > > think it would be a good idea for us to begin to tackle this question, > > It's just short of a month since Steve posted this, with, as far as > I've seen, no concrete suggestions on what the m68k porters want to do > about this.
I *have* asked about the possibility to maintain our own slightly-different m68k distribution (similar to how amd64 works for sarge) on debian.org servers, but have not heard anything about that. Currently, our priority is to get the 300-packages backlog done, though. At least that's mine. -- <Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
