On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 11:41:02AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Not only you, Jerome and me were suggesting it in the past. However I am
> afraid that the whole package movement machinery would have to be
> rewritten to allow independent handling of the version in different
> "testing" threes, plus there would appear some problems with porting of
> the security fixes to all varios testing versions on different
> plattforms. And don't forget, we need lots of man power to sort the
> relevant RC bugs, and likely need something in the BTS to set
> architecture marking tags.
I was thinking about having someone manually override packages into
the hypothetical testing-x86 distribution, and applying common sense
(hence my glibc example), as opposed to needing new machinery in the
BTS to set architecture marking bugs. I also explicitly called it
"testing-x86", as opposed to the the x86 architecture of testing,
precisely to avoid needing to rewrite the package movement machinery.
The thought process was to see how much of the existing machinery
could be reused without needing to modify them, as I'm a Lazy S.O.B. :-)
As far as the extra man power is concerned, if there is someone to
support the "testing-x86" distribution, and no one can be found to
support the "testing-m68k" distribution ---- oh well, they'll just
have to settle for the traditional stable, testing, and unstable.
- Ted
