On MÃirt, 2005-03-22 at 00:11 +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > > If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new, I > > certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that arch, > > however. So I'd say Matthew's explanation is not perfect. But the > > reasoning behind it is not difficult to spot. > > > > Throwing out this requirement makes sense, if and only if there is another > > way to get sure a released arch will not be left stranded. So, let's work > > on these alternate ways, so that this rule can be removed. > > > > It's not because you can't buy a new machine, the arch suddenly stops > being useful.
I think the point of this requirement is to support it we need buildds in the future for security fixes. Hence while I might like my mips box, etc. it would be irresponsible for us to do a release that we could not support in e.g. two years time when the motherboards of our buildds die. Perhaps this clause could be refined, though: should it be a sub-arch requirement and not just an arch one; or could we specify that its OK to release if we have a given stock of replacement hardware available (e.g. given our good relationship with HP, its likely we could get sufficient Alpha hardware for several years after HP finally stop shipping Alphas). > Cheers, > > Peter (p2). Regards Alastair McKinstry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
