On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:10:30PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > #include <hallo.h> > * Colin Watson [Mon, Mar 14 2005, 02:40:56PM]: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:31:30PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > > > Re: Andres Salomon in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > without being constricted by others' deadlines and such. Unfortunately, > > > > the naming (second class citizen?), and the feeling that their > > > > architectures are no longer "officially supported", means that people > > > > will > > > > view this as a negative thing. > > > > > > I'd propose to use a less "discriminating" name for the scc archive. > > > What about ports.debian.org (which coincidentally already exists and > > > http-wise points to http://www.debian.org/ports/)? > > > > I like this idea. SCC was a working codename that I think was originally > > intended to be changed as soon as somebody thought of something better, > > but nobody ever quite got round to it ... > > Does it sound discriminating because you associcate that with real life? > Is "second class port" be a better name? (scp.d.o)? Or "non-releaseable > ports", nrp.d.o?
I have proposed tier-1 ports for the main arches, tier-2 ports for the other ready ports but dropped from official support, and tier-3 ports for in-development ports. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
