On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:57, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > This really makes unstable snapshotting, or building stable once it's > > released as Anthony has also suggested in this thread, look like much > > better options than trying to build out of testing. > > Building stable once it is released does look indeed like a good > option. Only it's a pity that the Vancouver plan does not allow it.
If a arch can show that it is able to support a high-quality-Debian-stable as we all know and love, it can be promoted to tier-1. amd64 proves that it is possible to archive potential tier-1 status without much support from the core teams. If on the other hand an arch cannot collect enough man- and machine-power to support such a release (with security, without too heavy shlibs-skew) it is only honest not to put the stamp of Debian/stable unto such a thing. Last but not least, nobody can prohibit you from assembling a package pool for $tier-2-arch which mostly resembles Debian/stable tier-1. As far as I understand it, scc.d.o infrastructure is explicitly for such ventures on those architectures that need relativly stable 12-18 month release cycles. Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
