* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:17:55AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > In other words, that the only thing we're talking about is distribution > > > of binaries built from sarge sources? > > > > Make it a release architecture which will move those bugs to RC and give > > us a BSP weekend. > > Did the amd64 team even ask the release team whether NMUing for amd64 > support is alright in case maintainers are inactive? I don't see why we > absolutely need to have amd64 on ftp.d.o in order to achieve this.
I suppose not, but if it's not a release architecture I don't really see
the justification for the NMU. It's possible (though pretty unlikely,
but still) that such an NMU will break things or delay things more when
people are working towards a release. If you really think it'd be worth
asking them then I suppose we can, I don't really have any problem
asking, just seems like an obvious answer to me, and other package
maintainers are likely to feel the same way.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
