On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:37:22PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, Henning Makholm wrote: > > >> Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or > >> whatever) to their autobuilders, > > > > True - for as long as they do not try to upload the result to the > > Debian archive, which will carry only "unstable". > > I do not consider this to be set in stone. > > The people who were at the meeting agreed on some things. Not everybody > who has a stake, or even is responsible for the current support of $ARCH > in Debian, was at the meeting. Therefore the result of the meeting is in > no way binding on anybody. (This is regardless of the fact that the people > responsible for it *did* say that the proposal is ... well, exactly that.)
Uh, the ftp-masters are responsible for maintaining the archive, and the release team is responsible for managing releases. If they come to a conclusion that it's impossible to make timely releases and keep all of these architectures in a single archive, then that's their decision to make. If I were in one of those rolls, I know I'd be pretty upset if I made a decision and then a bunch of people started ranting and raving about it and said I had no power to make that decision. It would make me wonder why the hell I'm in that roll anyway. And I'd probably quit out of frustration. > Otherwise, we would be leaving Debian en masse, instead of discussing the > Vancouver paper. By all means. If you care enough about a particular SSC arch, go create your own stable releases on it based on the official Debian release. That's exactly what the "proposal" is about. -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]