Le Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 10:35:52AM -0500, Joey Hess a écrit : > Charles Plessy wrote: > > How about releasing a RC1.5, then, with a 2.6.18 as similar as possible > > as the one forecasted in testing ? > > > There are of course all kinds of ways to hack around this, but all of > them are suboptimal. For example, we could produce a hacked CD that > includes unstable's kernel. And updated version of everything it depends > on. And everything those dependencies depend on. But this would only > work for systems installed from CD.
> Setting this up would take significant developer time, and that > would be time that does not in the end benefit the etch release at all. Dear Joey, priorities are something very personnal, and I trust the members of the DI team to manage theirs well. I think that what the powerpc port needs is somebody with priorities focused on "getting things done on powerpc". With this goal, the duplicated work you described is not necessarly a waste. At least, the criteria for deciding to do it or not become different. I do not know how difficult it would be to ease that kind of temporary digression. A sort of pbuilder checking if local patches to official packages are available, maybe ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
