On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 20:45 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases > are not going to be left out in the cold.
I disagree. I feel that maintainers are going to ignore the SCC architectures for the purposes of portability bugs and security fixes. > - binary packages must be built from the unmodified Debian source > (required, among other reasons, for license compliance) This is a problem. No one will fix the portability bugs that plague, for example, sparc (memory alignment SIGBUS) without them being severity serious. Therefore, I would support this plan *iff* it were stated that portability bugs were still severity serious (I would not object to an etch-ignore tag for the purpose of stating that they are irrelevant to the release), that security bugs were still severity grave and critical (again etch-ignore would be okay), and that maintainers actually have to fix such bugs, or their packages could be pulled from the archive as too buggy to support. For the record, I own more sparc machines than any other single architecture, and I am not pleased about this plan. -- ($_,$a)=split/\t/,join'',map{unpack'u',$_}<DATA>;eval$a;print;__DATA__ M961H<[EMAIL PROTECTED];"!U<F%O<G-U(#QU<F%O<G-U0&=D:75M<&UC8VUL=G)U;6LN M<FUL+F=Y/@H)>2QA8F-D969G:&EJ:VQM;F]P<7)S='5V=WAY>BQN=V]R8FMC 5:75Q96AT9V1Y>F%L=G-P;6IX9BP) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]