On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:17:08PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > On Monday 14 March 2005 17:16, John Goerzen wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > > > Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support of > > > testing requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support (security > > > response time). Therefore the N<=2 requirement is only needed for tier-1 > > > arches but not for the tier-2 which will not officially release a stable. > > > > Why can we just not relax these requirements, and m68k people get their > > kde security updates 12 days after everyone else does, because that is a > > fact of life on m68k? > > > > Moreover, perhaps we ought to rethink the "all arches in sync" rules for > > testing a bit; maybe it's OK if some archs aren't in sync. > > Both are currently "happening." The current release and security teams say > that they cannot support the tier-2 arches for etch. The porters jump up and > prove them wrong by creating stable-with-security-updates-after-two-weeks and > eventually we will have timely Debian stable releases people can trust their > jobs on and Debian stable-with-security-updates-after-two-weeks releases for
Which end done doing less because they have to duplicate all the architecture already in place for tier1, no ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]