On Wed, Oct 18, 2006, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > 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.
It would be nice to know whether these problems are show stoppers or whether the option would make sense, perhaps with some efforts. > 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... ;-) Yes, I realized it was relatively close to aj's proposal, but aj's proposal seemed to be slightly inconvenient. It sounded like there would some rupture, some big move from the current etch archive to a new m68k-testing archive. In other words, it would be nice if the switch could be transparent to m68k users so that they do not have to change setups or tweak an unstable snapshot. I think it would be interesting if someone could confirm that it would be technically feasible to split the etch/testing setup (britney I suppose) and to delegate handling of anything relevant to m68k to m68k folks. This would have the advantage of putting the quality of the resulting archive in the hands of the porters, and I hope it would also abstract this difference technically from all archive wide tools / users / operations. -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
