Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I suggest one change to this. Instead of renaming debian-devel-changes
> > to debian-devel-changes-i386, it should be changed to
> > debian-devel-changes-source. This way people who upload source packages
> > for other architectures will get noticed, and the packages will be
> > recompiled by i386 users. I expect that more package maintainers will
> > be using non-i386 in future, and this should help the i386 packages stay
> > up to date.
>
> I don't fully understand your suggestion.
I'll try and clarify it.
> My proposal had already two different lists, debian-devel-changes-i386 and
> debian-devel-changes-source:
Yes, I agree with this part of your proposal.
> * People subscribed to the first one are only interested in binary .deb
> packages for the i386 architecture, not in new source packages. Most of
> the Debian users currently subscribed to debian-devel-changes will want to
> stay here.
I suggest that the current debian-devel-changes be your
debian-devel-changes-source list, because I think most of the people
currently subscribed to debian-devel-changes are developers, more
interested in new releases (ie source packages) than binaries.
> I think we should not force normal i386 users to receive source
> announcements not containing any i386 .deb binary.
This is i386-centric. I think we should not force normal non-i386 users to
receive announcements not containing any non-i386 .deb binary. It is also
important for i386 users to port packages which are maintained on different
architectures (like Hartmut Koptein's enscript package, for example).
Martin.
