* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > 4) Should the existing pure64 be added to sarge? > > The answer to number (4) seems clearly "no". Being a part of sid and > testing is a requirement for being a part of stable, and regardless of > whether something has been excluded from sid for good reasons or bad > reasons, it shouldn't be put in stable by some kind of end-run around > sid and testing.
I believe the proponents of the GR intend for it to be added to sid and
testing as well as sarge. It's not really intended as an end-run around
them so much as there's an implicit assumption that there won't be any
problems w/ amd64 in sid/testing. The GR probably could have been
better in this regard.
I don't believe 'not being in sid/testing' is justification for keeping
it out of sarge unless there isn't enough time to get amd64 into sid and
through testing prior to sarge being released and w/o holding sarge back
itself. I havn't heard anything but speculation in this regard. If
anyone has any concrete and specific reasons why it would hold back or
cause important packages to be dropped from sarge then please speak up
and let us know so that we can work on them. I do know some issues have
been brought up on debian-amd64 and we've worked to resolve them.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
