On Sunday 20 March 2005 16:59, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > 7) the porter team has the possibility to providing arch-specific > > overrides to solve the issue of a package not passing from unstable > > into testing due to a tier1-specific RC bug or whatever. Should be used > > sparingly though. > > This seems problematic in this respect. > > I might have missed the previous suggestions or the obvious flaws of the > idea, but why not have something along the lines of "releasing all > 'tier2' arches with the packages they have", i.e. agressive per-arch > removal for uninstallable/unusable/not-up-to-date packages. Those arches > that have something worth releasing at release time (installer, all > priority >= important, x% of optional in usual release quality) do that. > This way, the security support of the additional arches would stay > largely the same.
> One could have the present testing rules up to some > point and switch to "if arch-specific RC bugs/testing delays pop up, > stuff get removed" for release. I like this idea, any cons? -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
pgp4iyBiruyDm.pgp
Description: PGP signature