On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 11:44:52AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 10:10:10AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > * have m68k be in unstable, and have it have its own
> > > > "testing-like"
> > > > suite of some description
> > > > + keeps the arch alive
> > > > - some work to keep m68k-testing in sync with real testing
> > > > needed
> > > > - doesn't have real releases
> > > > - may not have security support
> > > Is it possible to run britney multiple times, the first time for all
> > > releasable arches, and the following runs for each other arch, but
> > > commit changes to etch/$arch?
> > > For example, this would permit releasing an etch/m68k without a
> > > separate archive.
> > > Perhaps the maintenance of the testing propagation of m68k alone should
> > > then be made by m68k porters instead of the *release* team.
> > Finally a good proposal... thx! :)
> I believe there are some problems because we don't want to have too many
> versions of the same source package, that's why this is not generalized
> and why we try to keep all arches in sync.
> But in essence, this proposal is the same as Anthony's with its separate
> "m68k-testing" suite ! I don't understand how you can be happy this time
> and be unhappy before... ;-)
Because of the wording and the more elaborated details. It's more something
we can work on, although it's still not my preferred solution.
--
Ciao... // Fon: 0381-2744150
Ingo \X/ SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij/public_key.asc
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
