Re: A new arch support proposal, hopefully consensual (?)

[Mike Fedyk]

Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, this is the easy part, and also what the vancouver-proposal included, the
difference comes in how the minority-arches are handled, and my proposal is a
'including' proposal, while the vancouver-proposal was 'excluding'.
4) each non-tier1 arches will have its own testing infrastructure, which
would take both unstable and testing in account.
5) packages are built out of unstable into an arch-specific unstable binary
repository on a separate machine (altough many minority arches may share this
infrastructure).
 

This allows for source package version skew on a per arch level.  In the 
worst case, each non-tier1 arch could have a different source package 
version when compared to tier1 and all of the other non-tier1 arches.

To have the least possibility for source package version skew, the 
non-tier1 arches should branch off of tier1-testing instead of 
tier1-unstable.

Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]