On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:04:26PM +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote: > I see armel is already not a candidate for buster [0]. > So it seems we can discuss armhf, but no armel at all. > I don't agree with this idea. > And I think we should treat armel and armhf equally.
Please review the mail which originated this thread [1] where you will see that both armel and armhf are affected by DSA's concern. If I understand correctly, virtualisation of architectures in general is a possible solution but there are problems in the case of these two. At the end of the day, if Debian can't reliably run builders for an architecture we do not do users a service by pretending to be able to support it in a formal release. A freeze may be for Christmas, but stable is for at least five+ years. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
