also sprach Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.17.1827 +0100]:
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 17:10]:
Why can't we have separate sid-testing propagation for each arch,
then freeze testing as before, get rid of RC bugs, and release?
Because than the security team may
also sprach martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.18.1021 +0100]:
That said, the chance of a package going out of sync on more than
a few architectures is minimal, so even though your speculation is
correct, it's likely not going to be in effect ever.
and if we have different versions for
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:22:31 +0100, martin f krafft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also sprach martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.18.1021 +0100]:
That said, the chance of a package going out of sync on more than
a few architectures is minimal, so even though your speculation is
correct, it's
also sprach Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.18.1053 +0100]:
It is, however, widely considered a feature that a package has the
same version on all released arches. I'd vouch for keeping that
requirement.
Are we really to expect a lot of disparities if we loosen the
requirement?
--
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:21:17AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.17.1827 +0100]:
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 17:10]:
Why can't we have separate sid-testing propagation for each arch,
then freeze testing as before, get
also sprach Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.18.1145 +0100]:
This is a good point, but I wonder whether it should remain
a show-stopper. Wouldn't the logical solution be to stock up the
security team?
The security team is under-staffed *now*, AFAICT; and you want to increase
also sprach David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.16.1923 +0100]:
* relaxing arch-specific to also be able to exclude KDE/GNOME
from mips (until someone commits to properly support it for
whatever reason he has)
Why do we make a package foo's entry to testing dependent on whether
foo has
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 16:51 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.16.1923 +0100]:
* relaxing arch-specific to also be able to exclude KDE/GNOME
from mips (until someone commits to properly support it for
whatever reason he has)
Why do we make
also sprach Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.17.1734 +0100]:
This it what I see as the attitude of *some* people: It works on
x86, x86-64 ppc. Who cares about lame old and/or arches like
m68k, arm, hppa sparc?
Well, there seem to be no more than two ways to get rid of this
problem:
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 18:00 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.17.1734 +0100]:
This it what I see as the attitude of *some* people: It works on
x86, x86-64 ppc. Who cares about lame old and/or arches like
m68k, arm, hppa sparc?
Well,
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 17:10]:
Why can't we have separate sid-testing propagation for each arch,
then freeze testing as before, get rid of RC bugs, and release?
Because than the security team may need to fix 11 different source
packages (or how many architectures we
11 matches
Mail list logo
