* Stephen Gran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said: > > The point is still that some architectures are going to be left out in > > the dark. That's the purpose of the whole plan. > > Only if those architectures don't have sufficient community support. I > really cannot see the problem with that - you want to release > architectures that aren't well supported as 'Debian stable'? I don't. > Under the terms of the proposal as laid out, all 11 architectures > shipping with sarge _could_ ship with etch (although they might not be > mirrored so widely). It is just up to the porters to make sure this > happens.
I don't believe this is accurate, and is in fact a big problem that I
have with this proposal. Things like "N may not be more than 2" and
"architecture must be available for purchase new" are not things which
the Debian community is likely to be able to fix. Supplying more than 2
machines, and the manpower to admin them, is something the community
could do and if that happens and someone offers to join the security,
RM, etc teams to handle post-release support I think the arch should
be released as stable.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
