Roman Zippel a écrit :
[Skip]
Hmmm, I doubt that this work out well. It's just a feeling.
Most m68k users are using stable, I'd say, so a stable release would fit
best the needs of our users. Forcing them to use testing might be a bad
idea.
Having it be a "stable" release means ha
Ingo Juergensmann a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a
release architecture for etch.
We have also asked abou
Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:49:21AM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 09:22:29PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
Even if you still think that doing this early
Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 09:22:29PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
Even if you still think that doing this early rather than late is
necessary from your point of view, I would still like to search for
alternatives, a compromise; say
Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
Even if you still think that doing this early rather than late is
necessary from your point of view, I would still like to search for
alternatives, a compromise; say, that you create a stage in between 'not
considered' and 'fully considered', where e.g. a package could
5 matches
Mail list logo
