Scripsit David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tuesday 15 March 2005 17:08, Henning Makholm wrote: >> Scripsit David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > 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. >> Um, isn't the context of this discussion that some of the >> architectures that (will) have showed this *by being released with >> sarge* will not be allowed to do the same thing for etch? > The arches releasing with sarge have been "handheld" by the various > teams. The teams say they won't do the all the work for all these > arches for etch - for various reasons (I also can only guess). And they have also told us that nobody else will be allowed to do this work unless they do it outside Debian. > So I have understood it that the porter teams have to show that they > can fill the gaps. No, they will not be allowed the opportunity to show this. Read the plan - it says that only i386, powerpc, ia64 and amd64 will be allowed to have a testing and stable archive that the porter teams can try filling. >> Support from the core teams is not the issue, except insofar as it >> constitutes "support" to allow stable and testing .debs to exist in >> the archive. > "Support" is not only "allowing" it. No, but the allowing is the point that the porter teams *cannot* do themselves, and which they are now being denies. > This also entails e.g. security handling, > prompt compilation of packages, d-i and kernel work. Porters *can* do that if they want to have a stable release. But they will not, according to the plan, be allowed to do it. >> Of course. But they _are_ saying that if I do it, it has to be outside >> Debian. > If you can provide the quality expected of a Debian/stable release, then I > don't believe anyone would object calling the result Debian/stable. Then I suggest you read the Vancouver plan that Steve Langasek posted on debian-devel-announce earlier this week. It's, like, the basis for this entire thread. >> I have become too confused to follow whether SCC means tier 2 >> (released, just not widely mirrored) or tier 3 (banned from ever >> releasing). > "Not wanting to do the work" != "banned". The plan says: "Even if you want to do the work, we won't let you". That's pretty much equivalent to "banned" in my book. -- Henning Makholm "*Her* sidder jaj & har *ild* bå cigarren *imens* Pelle Jönsson i Nordnorge har mavepine."