On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 02:47:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 04:20 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 02:55:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 13:47 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > Of course, I have a conflict of interest here as an alpha porter, so > > > > ultimately I'll defer to Andi if he thinks it's become a problem; but in > > > > general we're unlikely to cut a port from the release at this late stage > > > > without some pretty serious, long-term problems. > > > What if a security build needs to be made in these ten days? > > Then we're in the same situation we've been in any number of times before -- > > a bad one, but not one that's been deemed a reason to exclude an > > architecture from release per se. > This is the first time we have the "must have two buildds" rule. This > rule had a purpose behind it, which was *exactly* the situation we are > now in. We are experiencing exactly the kind of problems for which this > rule was created. This is not some kind of strange and exceptional case > which is unlike the problems the rule was created to avoid; this is > exactly the case the rule was created to avoid. > So, why do we have the rule? If the rule exists so that it can be > ignored in the central case the rule was about, then let's get rid of > the rule. I've already answered this: we don't have such a rule. It was waived for etch as a result of negative feedback and poor compliance across our existing architectures. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
