On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:05:15AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:15PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > [1] The installer might be a point, but since all sarge architectures > > > will have a working installer and I hope there's not another > > > installer rewrite planned for etch this shouldn't be a big issue. > > > > This is still an issue. Joey Hess's mails have indicated very clearly that > > it's > > difficult to get an installer release out even when all arches are already > > supported. > > This is a non-issue. The main problem was the kernel situation, which will be > streamlined for etch into a single package, and maybe build issues, which > could be solved by a separate build queue or priority for d-i issues.
You know, you keep saying this and I have a really hard time believing it, although I don't follow the kernel list so please enlighten me if I'm wrong. If you have a single source package for 12 different architectures that's great, because when you have a security fix you can take care of that more easily. That's awesome. But then you'll be trading off for the same problems that every single other packge faces: namely that if a kernel on a single arch has an RC bug then it affects the kernels on every arch. This strikes me as being very problematic, and the only way I see around it is to downgrade actual RC bugs, which isn't really a solution at all. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
