Joerg Jaspert, le Mon 06 May 2013 21:27:46 +0200, a écrit : > Adding it and then keeping it out of the usual migration rules is asking > for failure from the beginning, accumulating cruft. Not a way to go, IMO.
Excluding from the migration rules would probably become a headache, yes. But wouldn't just dropping packages which may come in the way of migrations help? > > From the view of maintainers I think that would be the deciding factor, > > because it could imply extra work. Not everyone sees the benefits of > > porting efforts (whereas I see it as excellent QA and promotes better > > software design, hence I'm in favour of inclusion). > > I would be in favour of including it if it actually would look like it > could be as up to the task as all the rest of the architectures are. > But it doesn't appear to me that it is that. Well "as up to the task as all the rest" is for sure not true. But one can also say the same for kfreebsd or less-supported linux archs. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130506203236.go6...@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr
