On Monday 14 March 2005 17:16, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > > Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support of > > testing requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support (security > > response time). Therefore the N<=2 requirement is only needed for tier-1 > > arches but not for the tier-2 which will not officially release a stable. > > Why can we just not relax these requirements, and m68k people get their > kde security updates 12 days after everyone else does, because that is a > fact of life on m68k? > > Moreover, perhaps we ought to rethink the "all arches in sync" rules for > testing a bit; maybe it's OK if some archs aren't in sync.
Both are currently "happening." The current release and security teams say that they cannot support the tier-2 arches for etch. The porters jump up and prove them wrong by creating stable-with-security-updates-after-two-weeks and eventually we will have timely Debian stable releases people can trust their jobs on and Debian stable-with-security-updates-after-two-weeks releases for tier-1.5 arches I can safely install behind a firewall or in my network-free basement. Or perhaps they pickup the idea floating around somewhere else in this thread, building two or three 10-ways distcc-powered buildds suddenly fulfilling tier-1 requirements. But the latter will not be done by the current release/security/d-i/kernel/x teams. In my opinion these rules are an important step in the right direction: setting down checkable borders. Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
